A psychologist who was found to have misled the family court about his qualifications had previously given expert evidence in at least seven other cases in which he may have been acting outside his remit.
Graham Flatman, an educational psychologist based in Kent, was suspended for six months by the regulator for taking work as a “clinical psychologist” and carrying out an assessment he was not qualified to make.
Now aninvestigationby the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has identified a string of further cases in which he may have acted beyond his remit.
Flatman is only trained to assess the educational needs of children and young people up to the age of 25 who have learning difficulties – whereas clinical psychologists can examine people of all ages for a wide range of disorders.
In 2018 he wrote a wide-ranging report on a vulnerable mother as part of family court proceedings. She later complained to the regulator.
The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) said Flatman “misled [the woman] and the court” and that his “misconduct brought the profession into disrepute and had the potential to harm [the mother]”.
At a disciplinary hearing in April last year, Flatman said he had been instructed as a psychologist with relevant experience. He said he had never been specifically instructed as an educational psychologist in the family courts despite having provided expert evidence in “around 1,680” family cases.
TBIJ has examined seven further cases in which he gave expert evidence between 2013 and 2024 and found that in all those cases he may have acted outside his professional remit by assessing people for a range of non-educational issues.
Miriam Silver, a consultant clinical psychologist who co-authoredguidanceon the use of psychologists in the family courts, said: “It is deeply concerning that someone who may have been acting outside of their field of competence was able to give evidence in such a potentially huge number of court cases.
“The role of the psychologist as an expert witness is very influential in the family courts, and whilst the judge will weigh up all the evidence to inform their decision and may sometimes disregard our recommendations, generally they give a lot of weight to our opinions.”
In one case, Flatman’s conclusions led to him being criticised by two court of appeal judges after he failed to conduct the proper legal test to establish if a vulnerable mother could understand proceedings about the future care of her daughter – although they noted the case would have had the same outcome.
Flatman’s six-month suspension was lifted in October. The panel noted he was no longer working in the courts. However, he remains registered with the HCPC and the watchdog cannot prevent him from making court assessments in the future.
In a statement, Flatman said he had worked as an expert witness in family courts since 1997. He did not respond when asked how many assessments he had undertaken on adults in total.
“I have never presented myself as a clinical psychologist,” he said. “With every report, I accurately included my professional qualifications and experience as an educational psychologist.”
Flatman said he immediately stopped his family court work after the HCPC’s findings and took the suspension “very seriously”.
In the case that led to his disciplinary action, Flatman conducted tests on the woman that the panel said went beyond the limits of his skills, knowledge and experience.
Flatman told the panel he had been acting as an expert in the family courts since about 1997. It did not examine how many other adults he had assessed during this time but warned that his actions could discredit his evidence in other cases.
None of the published judgments of the seven cases identified by TBIJ correctly refer to Flatman as an educational psychologist. Judges instead describe him as a “very experienced psychologist”, “a child and family psychologist” and a “psychologist”.
Silver said: “It is incumbent on the expert to be very clear about their qualifications and areas of expertise, and to correct any errors made about their title or scope of knowledge.”
The cases uncovered by TBIJ show that Flatman’s opinions informed decisions that had a profound impact on the lives of those involved. He produced psychological reports on the ability of three mothers to care for their children, who were all subsequently removed from their care.
The HCPC took no further action after his suspension expired as he had taken steps to address his misconduct, which included no longer undertaking expert witness work.
Flatman told the regulator he “fully acknowledged the risk of harm associated with his misconduct” and promised to stay within the traditional scope of an educational psychologist.
The HCPC said Flatman had demonstrated a high level of insight and it was “highly unlikely his conduct would be repeated”.