On the day Sarah’s daughters were scheduled to attend a paddling-pool gathering, their excitement was palpable. It was July 2020, and with lockdown measures in England being lifted, the girls, aged nine and six, were eager to reunite with friends after being apart for several months. Sarah had recently purchased matching swimsuits for them, featuring blue fabric adorned with sequin unicorns.
However, the girls never had the chance to attend the party. Just three days prior, Sarah received a distressing phone call from her lawyer. “I couldn’t process what I was hearing,” she recalls. “My legs started shaking.” The lawyer informed her that evidence presented in family court had labeled her a “narcissist,” claiming she posed an immediate threat to herself and her children. This meant that her daughters could be taken away from her without delay.
“I kept insisting that it made no sense,” Sarah stated. She had committed no wrongdoing, and the social workers, teachers, and other professionals involved with her children had found no issues with her parenting. During lockdown, she and her daughters engaged in activities like math lessons and exploring nature, and they were thriving together.
The individual who had “diagnosed” Sarah was an unregulated psychologist named Melanie Gill. At one point, the judge mistakenly referred to her as “Dr.,” despite her lacking the qualifications to hold such a title. Gill possessed only a third-class degree in psychology and a diploma in child forensic studies, which she received instead of a master’s degree because she didn’t complete her dissertation.
On the morning of the party, Sarah attended an urgent court hearing via video call that lasted 50 minutes. Based on Gill’s testimony, the judge ruled that her daughters would need to live with their father and gave her just two hours to prepare them for the transition. Instead of heading to the paddling pool, she had to inform them they were going on a “two-week holiday with Daddy.”
When their father arrived, the children resisted going with him. “The girls were clinging to me and had to be forcibly taken away while screaming,” Sarah recounted. “All the neighbors came out to witness the scene.” In an instant, she felt her family was torn apart.
That incident occurred more than six years ago. Since then, aside from two brief encounters, Sarah has not been allowed to see her daughters without supervision. Most of their interactions have taken place bi-weekly in public venues like hotel lobbies. She has missed significant milestones, including birthdays, her daughters’ first relationships, and academic achievements. Decisions regarding secondary school and GCSE courses were made without her input, and she was not informed when one of her daughters required medical attention. “I have effectively lost all parental rights,” she explained.
The legal battle to regain access to her daughters has cost Sarah £85,000, with an additional £13,000 spent on supervised visitation. Financially, she is nearing bankruptcy. She continues to question how one unregulated psychologist’s opinion, founded on a theory now recognized in England and Wales as “harmful pseudo-science,” could wield such influence over her life.
Sarah’s relationship with her ex-partner began when she was a teenager. “He was my first love,” she said. Initially, they seemed happy, but Sarah later described his behavior as controlling and prone to anger. “It was my first serious relationship, and I didn’t realize it was unhealthy.” They married, had children, and Sarah chose to leave her job to care for them, after which her ex increasingly managed their finances.
By 2018, tensions in their marriage had escalated, leading to multiple police interventions. Sarah’s mental health deteriorated, culminating in an accidental overdose that required hospitalization. Following this incident, social services were alerted, noting that the children had witnessed domestic violence and were showing signs of anxiety.
Her ex-partner was outraged that social services were involved, and while they were still living together, he applied to family court to restrict Sarah’s access to the children. Following a series of escalating abusive incidents, she fled their home with her daughters under police protection. Sarah reported the abuse and later obtained a non-molestation order from the court. In retaliation, her ex claimed she had attempted suicide, which she refuted, backed by hospital records, and accused her of alienating the children from him.
In July 2018, a district judge in family court issued limited findings against both parents. These included allegations that Sarah had slapped, shouted at, and sent abusive messages to her ex. The judge also acknowledged her ex’s “nasty” and “intimidating” behavior, which included an incident where he inadvertently trapped her arm in a door. A court order was established to divide the children’s time equally between both parents.
However, a few months later, the girls began to exhibit signs of distress. Sarah’s older daughter confided to her doctor that her father had spanked her, and she experienced recurring stomach pains. Court documents reveal that the daughter later told various professionals that she and her sister were sent outside in the cold and dark by their father, seeking refuge in a playhouse before sneaking back inside.
The next day, the younger daughter recorded a video while hiding under her blankets, capturing her father’s argument with her sister. The elder daughter later informed her teacher and doctor that during the confrontation, her father had thrown her around, resulting in bruises on her head and chest. This prompted the school to notify social services, and the girls subsequently refused to see their father for eight weeks.
Meanwhile, Sarah continued her fight for justice, determined to protect her daughters and regain her parental rights.
