Scrutiny of professionals working in Children Act litigation

The case of Re E [2025] EWCA Civ 1563 arose from private law proceedings about a ten-year-old child. Although not a public law case, it has significant implications for professionals whose work may be scrutinised in Children Act litigation.

The applicant, psychotherapist Ms Aimee Dover, worked with the child's sibling from February 2022 until the sibling's death in December 2023. She gave evidence at the fact finding hearing and was cross examined over two days. The trial judge found that she acted outside her remit, exerted undue influence and lacked proper boundaries.

Open justice extends to professional accountability unless compelling reasons justify anonymity.

Procedural background

On 16 April 2025 the judge circulated a draft judgment and indicated that Ms Dover might be named. A hearing took place on 2 May, but she did not attend. She later made written submissions. On 16 July the judge decided that the judgment should be disclosed to her regulator and employers and that she should be named.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

Permission was refused on all grounds. She had raised no fairness concerns during or after the hearing. She had been cross examined on the issues underlying the findings, and her legal team had not disputed the judge's evaluation. A challenge now would require a fresh investigation and would be unfair to respondents.

Her Article 8 argument also failed. Open justice carries substantial weight where professional practice is criticised and regulators may need to act. Naming her did not risk identifying the children. Her argument that publication would create a chilling effect was rejected. The court noted that there was no evidence that naming her would deter other professionals from working with families or giving evidence. Any such concern was considered speculative when set against the strong principle of open justice.

Implications for professionals

• Non-party status does not insulate conduct. If professional work influences proceedings, the court may make findings.
• Fairness concerns must be raised at once. Silence may be treated as acceptance.
• Anonymity is exceptional. Reputational harm alone does not outweigh open justice.
• Professional boundaries must be clear. Overreach will be scrutinised.
• Records must be objective and accurate. Notes may be examined closely.
• Therapeutic work may be tested forensically. Methods and interactions must withstand scrutiny.
• Transparency about expertise and remit is essential. Courts expect accuracy about qualifications and limits.

Conclusion

Re E reaffirms transparency and accountability. Professionals working with vulnerable children must expect scrutiny where their actions influence proceedings. Findings may be published with individuals named unless compelling reasons justify anonymity. Good practice, clear documentation and early engagement with fairness issues remain the best protections.

James Dove is a barrister at Harcourt Chambers.