A therapist who gives expert evidence in family court cases and has been criticised on social media and in “sections of the press” is “experienced, independent, dedicated and effective”, a judge said.

Mr Justice Keehan praised Karen Woodall in a ruling on the latest stage of a separated mother and father’s long-running fight over the care of two children.

He commended Ms Woodall, who is described on the website www.karenwoodall.com as a “specialist in working with complex divorce and separation and its impact on children”, for her “professionalism and dedication” when working with the family over the past four years.

Ms Woodall has been the subject of criticism by a number of people on social media. Most of the posts are unfair and, in some cases, simply wrong in their adverse comments about the role of Ms Woodall as a forensic expert witness

The judge, who has overseen the dispute at hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London, said Ms Woodall had been the “subject of criticism” by a “number of people on social media”.

But he said “most of the posts” were unfair and, in some cases, “simply wrong”.

“I wish to commend Ms Woodall for her professionalism and dedication in her work with this family over the last four years,” he said.

“She has been the subject of considerable comment and criticism by sections of the press and on social media.”

He added: “I have always found Ms Woodall to be a very experienced, independent, dedicated and effective expert witness.

“Ms Woodall has been the subject of criticism by a number of people on social media.

“Most of the posts are unfair and, in some cases, simply wrong in their adverse comments about the role of Ms Woodall as a forensic expert witness.

I have never had occasion to doubt or question her evidence or her approach in any case before me

“I repeat that I have found Ms Woodall’s reports and evidence, in this case and many others that I have heard, to be balanced, fair and insightful.

“I have never had occasion to doubt or question her evidence or her approach in any case before me.”

Mr Justice Keehan, who outlined his thoughts in a ruling published online, did not give detail of the criticism he was referring to.

He said the youngsters at the centre of the case were teenagers but could not be identified in media reports.

He indicated that during the litigation he had heard evidence from three experts, child psychiatrist Dr Julet Butler, Dr Janine Braier, and Ms Woodall.

Dr Braier and Ms Woodall had tried and “resolve the conflict between the parents”, he said.

They had concluded that the children’s mother had “turned the children against the father”, he said.

The judge said, at an earlier stage, he had ruled that the children should leave the care of their mother and live with their father.

He said at the most recent stage he had made findings about the mother’s behaviour, since they moved to live with their father.

The judge said she had orchestrated a “campaign” of “tracking the children” and “forcing them to make false allegations against their father”.

He had concluded that it was “imperative” that she played “no future role of any description in their lives”.

Ms Woodall had told Mr Justice Keehan that she had “no confidence” that the mother was “capable of co-operation with the orders of the court” or of “co-parenting”.

She said her view was that “any contact between the children and their mother, until they reach the age of 18, would put them at risk of harm”.

In 2019, Ms Woodall featured in a ruling by a different judge, on another case, who raised concern about litigation in which a woman “alienated” her children from their father.

Judge Stephen Wildblood said the man lost touch with his children despite being an intelligent and loving parent.

He said attempts to move the children from their mother’s home to their father’s home had failed and the man had ended a legal fight for contact with them.

The judge said he had been asked to “consider the work of Ms Woodall”, who led arrangements for the transfer to the father and offered him “professional guidance”.

Judge Wildblood said “plans for the transfer of the children to the father” had involved an “underestimation of the likely reaction of the children”.

He said those plans, had been “devised, principally” by Ms Woodall.

The judge described Ms Woodall as a “psychotherapist and the leading therapist of the Family Separation Clinic in London”.

He said Ms Woodall was a “court-appointed expert” and, “although she may not be registered with a specific professional body” and did not practise in an area that was “subject to statutory regulation (as I understand it)”, she had supervision from a “highly respected consultant child psychiatrist” and lectured on “issues relating to parental alienation”.

The judge said, “all that” was “important, no doubt”, when considering her role as an expert in accordance with court procedure rules.