Neurodivergence in the Family Courts Series: Why We Need to Assess Autism & ADHD in Family Court
Family court work is high-stakes and time-limited, with significant implications for children’s safety and wellbeing. Where neurodivergence may be relevant to parenting, mental health or engagement with professionals, careful assessment can provide essential clarity. This piece explores why neurodevelopmental assessment, when clinically indicated, can be an important part of psychological understanding within the context and timescales of proceedings.
There is an ongoing debate in psychological practice about the place of neurodevelopmental assessment within legal contexts. Some clinicians express caution or reluctance about assessing autism and ADHD in family court proceedings. Concerns are often rooted in an understandable fear of labelling, the potential for misinterpretation and concerns about neurodivergent parents being left without support to understand the meaning of a diagnosis of autism or ADHD.
These concerns are valid and deserve careful consideration. However, avoidance is not the same as protection. In high-stakes child protection work, failing to investigate relevant factors can obscure rather than clarify what is happening in a family. When neurodivergence is a plausible factor in a parent’s responses, engagement or relationship patterns, it is both clinically appropriate and professionally responsible to assess it, provided the assessment is thorough, formulated sensitively and integrated into understanding the parent and parent/child relationship in context.
Timely Assessment & Understanding
One reason assessment is important is the timescales involved. Many adults are on long waiting lists for NHS autism and ADHD assessments, sometimes extending well beyond the timeframe of legal proceedings. Even private services may struggle to meet the urgent need for clarity when a case is live and decisions are imminent. Children do not have the luxury of waiting years for an assessment to be completed; their development and safety unfold in real time. If an adult’s neurodevelopmental profile might be shaping parenting capacity or engagement with professionals, that understanding needs to be established within the timescales of the proceedings. Delaying this until after a decision has been made can leave both children and parents without meaningful insight or support when it matters most.
High-Stakes Decisions Requires High-Quality Assessment
Another reason assessment matters in this context is that the work is inherently high-stakes and complex. Expert witness family court work demands meticulous attention to detail, clinical judgement and a capacity to evaluate not just diagnostic criteria, but functional implications — what someone’s profile means for their behaviour, relationships and caregiving over time. It is not sufficient to apply a quick screening or surface-level checklist. Instead, assessment needs to be as thorough and careful as it would be in any other clinical context — often more so, because the consequences of misunderstanding are greater.
Assessing autism and ADHD in this context is not about giving parents a “label” to explain away difficulty. Rather, it supports distinctions that matter: difference, difficulty, vulnerability and risk. It helps us understand how a parent experiences stress, regulation, social interaction and change — all of which may be relevant to relational safety and child development. Crucially, it helps us shape recommendations that are not based on assumption but on psychological understanding.
Neurodivergent Parents Need to Know Where and How to Access Information and Support
A further ethical dimension is the feedback given to the person being assessed. Far too often in family court work, assessments are completed, reports filed and conclusions served without meaningful feedback to the individual. From a clinical standpoint, this is a missed opportunity. Parents deserve to know what the assessment found, what it means, what support might be helpful and where to find further information. This is not only good clinical practice; it is respectful, humane and ultimately supports better outcomes for children and families.
In summary, ssessing neurodivergence in family courts when it is clinically indicated is both appropriate and necessary. Done with skill, care and thoroughness, it supports the child’s protection by bringing clarity into complex human behaviour within the timescales and pressures that these proceedings entail. It honours both psychological science and ethical practice, and ensures that decisions are based on understanding rather than assumption.
