The High Court has refused a father permission to challenge a Circuit Court order which left in-person access and video calls with his 14-year-old son subject to the child’s wishes.
The father argued that a court-appointed expert who prepared reports for the custody and access proceedings should have had specialist expertise in what he described as “parental alienation syndrome”. He maintained that the child’s rejection of contact required assessment by an expert with that particular specialism.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons rejected that argument at the preliminary leave stage of the judicial review case.
The court-appointed expert, independent social worker Marie-Louise McGovern, had first reported in 2021 that the child strongly opposed further contact with his father. An updated report completed in October 2024 again recorded a clear wish not to engage in access or other contact. It recommended respecting those wishes while allowing for structured contact if the child’s position changed.
At the March 2025 Circuit Court hearing, the father cross-examined Ms McGovern. She acknowledged that parental alienation was not an area in which she claimed specialist expertise. The Circuit Court nevertheless made an order under which contact and video calls remained subject to the child’s wishes, while retaining arrangements for letters, updates and information about the child’s health and education.
The High Court found that the statutory regulations governing a child’s views expert prescribe professional qualifications and experience but do not require a separate qualification in parental alienation. Ms McGovern, as an experienced social worker, satisfied those requirements.
Mr Justice Simons also held that the father’s argument about the weight the Circuit Court should have given her evidence amounted to a challenge to the merits of that court’s assessment. Judicial review normally examines whether a decision was made lawfully, not whether evidence should have been evaluated differently.
The judge stressed that the ruling did not decide the scientific validity of parental alienation syndrome. Leave to seek judicial review was refused, with the mother provisionally entitled to her costs.