Curriculum Vitae
Kingsley Miller MSc., Cert Ed.
Expert on the attachment theory in Children Proceedings with reference
to the flawed theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' as applied in the UK Family Court
Why would anybody need a so-called 'expert' on the attachment theory in Children Proceedings in the Family Court?
The flawed theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' is popular amongst child care professionals and can dominate family proceedings. In these circumstances it may be difficult to put your own case forward and it might be helpful to have the evidence of a third party whose expertise is recognised by internationally renowned academics as well as the highest level judges.
Formal qualifications
(1) Teachers' Certificate; A three year full time course at St Mary's College, Strawberry Hill, Twickenham, which included studying Child Psychology and Child Sociology. Subsequently teaching in a wide variety of schools across Hampshire for over 17 years before taking early retirement.
(2) Master of Science degree; This was a three year part-time course in Environmental Change at the University of Portsmouth which focused on research methods.
(3) Post Graduate Certificate in Research Methods; This was a one year part-time course included as part of the first year of a PhD at Southampton Institute, now the Solent University, that was not completed because of financial considerations.
Published books
I am the author of a self-published book called 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' which Professor Sir Michael Rutter described as an 'interesting and informative guide'. It has the sub-title 'A critique of the principle of Maternal Deprivation used by UK courts to justify contact orders between children and their parents'.
Accolades
"Very many thanks for sending me a copy of your interesting and informative guide on 'even Toddlers Need Fathers'. I much appreciate your drawing my attention to it".
Professor Sir Michael Rutter, 13 March 2002
"It was thoughtful of you to enclose a copy of your book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' and Her Majesty has noted your concerns".
Buckingham Palace, 26 July 2006
"I am very grateful to all those, like yourself who have written and particularly where you have been able to demonstrate your own thinking from the experiences you have had. Congratulations on your battle".
The former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, 22 March 2005.
Area of expertise
According to Baroness Hale, now Deputy President of the Supreme Court, 'He also argues that his views are not politically motivated, but they arise because of his qualifications and experience as a teacher with a professional interest in child development, child psychology and the welfare of children';
'The father has a point of view which he wishes to advocate. His Honour Judge Milligan described it as a political point of view, but it is not political in a party-political sense. There are many people who might call it political in the gender political-sense for there are many ways in which that word can be used. He has the view that the courts and the law have been too respectful of the relationship between mothers and their children to the detriment of the importance of the relationship between fathers and their children.
He argues that one of the purposes of the Children Act 1989 was to redress the balance: to promote a more equal sharing of responsibility for children between mothers and fathers and to promote the maintenance a good relationship as possible between children and each of their parents should, unhappily, their parents not be living together. The father is correct that that was one of the principles behind the Children Act 1989, in which I take a certain amount of pride'. (4 February 2003)
According to the Deputy President of the Supreme Court the purpose of the Children Act 1989 was to redress the balance: to promote a more equal sharing of responsibility for children between mothers and fathers and to promote the maintenance a good relationship as possible between children and each of their parents should, unhappily, their parents not be living together. However there is a psychological theory prevalent throughout the courts called the 'Tender Years' doctrine that does not promote a more equal sharing of responsibility for children between mothers and fathers. According to Dr John Bowlby's theory of Maternal Deprivation upon which the 'Tender Years' doctrine is based it is wrong to separate a small child from his or her mother. In a judgment Baroness Hale described the flaw in this theory,
15. Sir Michael qualified the original theory of maternal deprivation which had been developed by John Bowlby and expressed for popular consumption in a book called 'Child Care and the Growth of Love'. That theory was that children were damaged by separation from their mother or mother figure. Sir Michael Rutter pointed out that children were not invariably so damaged and that, in any event, other people, including their fathers, are also very important to children. (8 June 2000)
It is clear that the Deputy President of the Supreme Court is familiar with this aspect of child development but the views of Dr John Bowlby and Professor Sir Michael Rutter are not compatible yet some child care professionals still follow the 'Tender Years' doctrine. There is at least one example from another jurisdiction in which it was argued that child care professionals were acting negligently for not following Dr John Bowlby's flawed theory.
Dr John Bowlby described Professor Sir Michael Rutter as his 'erstwhile critic' because it is largely due to his work that we now have the research evidence to show, for example, that mothers can pursue their own careers because children are not harmed by separation. It was Professor Sir Michael Rutter who described the book 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' as an 'interesting and informative guide'.
Evidence for the 'Tender Years' doctrine can be seen in remarks made by the former President of the Family Division, Dame Butler-Sloss, now sitting in the House of Lords, in an interview she gave after the introduction of the Children & Families Act 2014,
'I would like to see I must say, mothers who flout contact orders required to do all sorts of things that don’t actually send her inside. I can see absolutely no reason why she shouldn’t do community service. I should like to see her penalised in all sorts of inconvenient ways as long as it doesn’t have any impact on her care of the child. So as long as the child is over 5 or goes to a child minder, then there is no reason why she shouldn’t be required to go and clean the streets, whatever it may be. I would make her do something really unpleasant so that she understands the consequences of this. But to send her to prison is counter productive, because the child will not want to know the man who has sent his mother to prison, particularly when she comes back and tells him about it'.
There is no research evidence to support the assumption that separated fathers should be excluded from the upbringing of their child or children until they are 5 years old, in the way suggested by Dame Butler-Sloss.
Experience
Lord Justice Thorpe sitting with Lord Justice Chadwick in the Court of Appeal on 8 October 1999 stated,
Mr Miller, who is a father of considerable intelligence, has very strong views on the extent to which both parents should be involved in the nurture of their child, despite the fact that they cannot live together as a couple. He has read extensively the specialist mental health literature. He is very familiar with the work and theories of Dr Bowlby. He has followed closely the important subsequent analysis of Dr Rutter. He accordingly feels that Dr Bowlby's attachment theory has no remaining value in any assessment of the capacity of a very young child to be separated from his mother to enable the father's experience of this stage of nurture to be if not equal with that of the mother, certainly of a very significant level.
On 30 July 2004 Lord Justice Thorpe gave me permission to publish the County Court Judgments from my own family proceedings because of my "history of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships."
In the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Scott-Baker on 4 November 2004 cited the particular paragraph of Lord Justice Thorpe's judgment with which Lord Justice Clarke agreed:
"I would indeed, given [the applicant's] history of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships, go further and ensure that the prohibition distinguishes between evidence in those proceedings and judgments in those proceedings. In my view, given the noticeable trend towards reduction in privacy, that would be appropriate in the circumstances of this case."
Lord Justice Scott-Baker went on to say, 'The matter came before Thorpe LJ in the context that this court has recently taken a rather more relaxed attitude about the publication of judgments in child proceedings. The present position being that the court looks carefully at the particular circumstances of individual cases. In consequence the applicant was permitted to publish judgments in his litigation about C, albeit not the evidence, with, of course, the proviso that nothing should be published that might lead to the identification of the child'.
It is because the attachment theory is misunderstood that I wish to share my own 'responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships' and contribute my professional expertise in 'child development, child psychology and the welfare of children' with the Family Court.
Recent activities
I have corresponded with the Attorney General's Department in Australia regarding the work of the Child Psychologist Jenn McIntosh PhD as well as the Chair of the Justice Select Committee concerning the introduction of the Children & Families Act 2014.
Duties of the expert
My duties as an expert will comply with (i) the Standards for Expert Witnesses in Children Proceedings in the Family Court which are set out in the Annex to Practice Direction 25B and when a report relates to children proceedings (ii) comply with the Standards for Expert Witnesses in Children Proceedings in the Family Court which are set out in the Annex to Practice Direction 25B - 'The Duties of an Expert, the Expert’s Report and Arrangements for an Expert to Attend Court'.
Court fee
I operate a fixed fee of £450 which includes studying documents, preparing a report and giving oral evidence in court if required.
Kingsley Miller
Tel: 0759 1997404
For more information follow this LINK
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It’s easy. Just click “Edit Text” or double click me to add your own content and make changes to the font. I’m a great place for you to tell a story and let your users know a little more about you.
