Each day Erin* would fill her school water bottle with scotch and coke and by recess it would be drunk.

At age 16, she says it was the only way to numb the pain of the abuse she claims she was experiencing at home.

She is one of many children who say they have been placed with allegedly abusive parents by the family court after a court-appointed expert dismissed legitimate allegations of abuse.

She cannot be named under laws protecting the identity of parties in family court matters.

She says home wasn’t a happy place.

“There was no real love in that house,” Erin says.

At age nine, after mostly living with her mother, she was placed with her father and stepmother, following a court order.

She was only allowed to see her mother for a five-hour visit, once a fortnight, in a public place.

At home with her father she claims she suffered violence, neglect and abuse.

She blames the expert witness — also known as a report writer — whose job it was to advise the court about what would be in Erin’s best interests.

A report writer is often a social worker, psychologist or psychiatrist employed by the courts or by the family.

Their role is to write an objective report that a judge considers when making a final decision.

Erin says in her case the report writer got it wrong, and helped convince the court to place her with a parent she claims abused her.

“I didn’t really trust the report writer,” she says.

Erin says she disclosed allegations of emotional abuse by her father to the report writer, but they didn’t do anything.

“They just asked weird questions like, ‘is it true your mum kisses you on the lips?'”

Over the years, Erin claims the abuse became worse.

“It was traumatic and I missed out on a happier life.”

In later years, Erin reported her claims to the police and a guidance counsellor. She also tried to run away from home only to be returned back to her father.

“Everyone saw I was struggling, and no one stepped in,” she says.

“I thought years ago I would be dead, no one should be pushed that much.”

No transparency

Under Section 121 of the Family Law Act report writers cannot be identified in individual court cases.

Dr Karen Williams, a Consultant Psychiatrist who specialises in trauma, says report writers need to be subject to the same level of scrutiny and oversight as any other medical professional.

“That is the biggest downfall, there is no review or complaint process, you have non-experts providing ‘expert opinion’ on issues without any consequences if they get it wrong.”

She says some report writers fail to take signs of abuse at face value and instead see them as evidence of lying and manipulation.

“The assessor needs to be able to create a sense of safety for the victims, and this is difficult when the outcome of these reports are so often used to refuse contact.”

Author and journalist Jess Hill, who has interviewed children involved in violent family disputes, says some report writers can cost a lot of money, charging at times around $15,000 or more for their court reports.

“They are charging through the nose for that evidence and so many people I’ve spoken to … have talked about details being wrong, that seem to have been cut and paste from other reports,” she says.

One psychiatrist — who can not be named under family court laws — has been repeatedly accused of downplaying and ignoring allegations of abuse in a number of cases, recommending children reside with allegedly abusive parents, where they claim to have suffered serious physical and sexual abuse.

That psychiatrist was the subject of a dozen complaints to the Health Care Complaints Commission, but no action was taken.

Further complaints to the Federal Attorney General and the Medical Council also resulted in no action and the psychiatrist continues to practice today.

Amelia*, an advocate, says no agency was prepared to take responsibility for the psychiatrist’s practices.

“Everybody knows, the problem is not going away, and neither are we,” she says.

She’s spoken to many families where the psychiatrist documented but then dismissed abuse allegations or trivialised disclosures of alleged child sexual abuse.

In some of these cases, she says the psychiatrist co-interviewed a child with the alleged abuser.

“The child was backing herself into a cupboard to stand even further away from the person she had named as the abuser,” she claims.

“In one case, [the psychiatrist] said a 5-year-old would not understand the term ‘private parts’ when she said her father asked her to rub his private parts.”

The psychiatrist didn’t respond to questions from the ABC.

‘Children are inherently honest’

Traditionally, children’s voices have been perceived as unreliable because they are thought to be prone to fantasy and can be easily swayed.