Court of Appeal Endorses Re C and Re Y

The Court of Appeal — comprising the President of the Family Division, Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Peter Jackson — dismissed a mother’s appeal against care orders made in respect of three children, in a case where she argued the instructed psychologist had acted “outside the limits of his expertise.” The court held that the trial judge’s decision rested on the evidence as a whole, and that the other evidence “so clearly supported the making of care orders” that no other outcome was realistically possible.

Of wider significance, the court gave firm procedural guidance for practitioners facing similar concerns in future: where a genuine issue arises about whether an expert has overreached their qualifications, “it is almost always likely to be more appropriate to make an application to the Family Court than to bring an appeal.” An appeal court, the judges noted, must decide long after the original order with limited ability to measure the effect of its decision on the children — whereas the Family Court can gather up-to-date information when deciding how to proceed.

Why It Matters: The Court of Appeal expressly endorsed the guidance in Re C and Re Y, confirming that courts should ask a potential expert to state whether they hold an HCPC-protected title before appointment, and that the “registered or chartered” requirement should only be departed from with reasons set out in a short judgment. Crucially, it also clarifies the correct route of challenge: practitioners with live concerns about an expert’s qualifications should generally return to the Family Court rather than wait to raise the issue on appeal.

Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk, EWCA Civ 249 · Court of Appeal · 12 March 2026