Calling For a “Royal Commission” into the ‘Family Court”
It is important to recognise that certain clinical practices within the Family Court system may raise concerns about procedural fairness and the proper exercise of professional roles. There appears to be a potential conflict of interest where clinical psychologists engaged in family proceedings derive ongoing professional benefit from continued involvement with litigants.
Based on observations in Hobart, it is understood that an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) may appoint a clinical psychologist to oversee both individual and family therapy. However, concern arises where the same practitioner assumes an evaluative or quasi-advocacy role within proceedings, including the application of contested constructs such as “parental alienation.” Such dual roles risk blurring the distinction between therapeutic support and forensic assessment.
The conflation of these roles may compromise the impartiality expected of therapeutic professionals and create a risk of undue influence on court outcomes. This is particularly problematic where opinions formed in a therapeutic context are afforded evidentiary weight without the safeguards typically required of expert evidence. Once a party is characterised within such a framework, there is a real risk that the label may persist and inform subsequent judicial determinations, potentially to that party’s detriment.
These circumstances raise legitimate questions concerning role boundaries, the admissibility and weight of evidence, and whether affected individuals are afforded a fair and unbiased process consistent with the principles of natural justice. The absence of a clear separation between therapeutic intervention and forensic evaluation may undermine both procedural fairness and the reliability of the evidentiary record.
Further concern arises where individuals exhibiting coercive or controlling behaviours may be inadvertently reinforced or legitimised by clinical interpretations that are subsequently relied upon within the legal process. Where such interpretations are accorded authority without adequate scrutiny, there is a risk that the court process itself may contribute to the perpetuation of harmful dynamics.
Upon further review, it is noted that in A Guide to Assessment and Intervention: Understanding and Managing Parental Alienation, published 17 September 2019. One of the authors was identified as a barrister (Family Court) who later became a magistrate in the Family Court, while another is a clinical psychologist involved in providing therapy (Family Court) to individuals characterised as “alienators.” This overlap between legal and clinical domains further underscores the importance of maintaining clear professional boundaries and ensuring independence in both assessment and intervention.
The potential consequences of these practices are significant. The misuse or overreliance on clinical documentation in Family Court proceedings may result in adverse outcomes, including orders that are later reconsidered or withdrawn. In my experience, such processes may be perceived as creating procedural disadvantage, where involvement in the system is used strategically, including through the deployment of allegations and documentation that may not withstand subsequent scrutiny.
The impact on children and families is profound. These issues warrant careful consideration to ensure that court processes remain fair, evidence-based, and consistent with established legal standards, and that professional practices within the system do not inadvertently contribute to harm.
Those involved in the assessment guide above need to take a long, hard look at the financial cost and damage to my family. I was neither the applicant nor the defendant, yet a party used the alienation narrative to systematically abuse the legal system to gain advantage and leverage in the Family Court by using an ‘Urgent Restraint Order’, only to retract the ‘Urgent Restraint Order’ ten months later, despite it being used as leverage in the Family Court without me being served.
Consideration must be given to a broader systemic review (Royal Commission), including whether further independent scrutiny of practices within the Family Court and associated professional roles is needed.