How to Complain About the Courts

If you feel that the court handling your case hasn’t done so professionally, and you haven’t received proper justice in your case, you can make a complaint directly with the court by contacting a member of the court staff either in person or via phone. You may want to make your complain more formal and in writing. If this is the case you need to complete form EX343A. You can download the form from the HMCS website. You should receive a reply about your complaint within 5 working days. When you make your complaint ensure that:

  • You describe all the facts relating to your complaint in as much detail as possible
  • Clearly explain why you think the court made a mistake with your case
  • What loss (if any) you have suffered as a consequence of the mistake or conduct of the court

If you are making a complaint about a specific member of court staff, and feel you have made a loss, you may be able to claim compensation. This will depend on the nature of your complaint.

Any complaint you make will be investigated and a decision made about any action to be taken. If you disagree with the outcome of your complaint, you can ask the Area Director to further consider your complaint. And if you are still not satisfied with the Area Director’s decision about your complaint, you can contact the Customer Service Unit by telephone on: 0845 4568770 or 020 7189 2000. Disability Helpline/Textphone: Freephone 0800 358 3506.

If after going through this procedure you still believe your complaint hasn’t been dealt with properly, you can contact the The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. You can’t contact this service directly, but your MP can help you make contact with them.


How to Complain About a Judge or Judicial Decision

How to Complain About a Judge or Judicial Decision

After the court case you are involved with has finished and you feel that your case wasn’t dealt with properly under the law, or that the presiding judge didn’t perform their duties in accordance with the law, you can make an appeal. Appeals can be effective, but take legal advice before you proceed with your complaint. All appeals need to be made quickly and directly to the court where your case was heard.

Making complaints about specific judges will mean contacting the Office for Judicial Complaints. You can telephone them on: 20 3334 2555, or visit their website

Complaining about a magistrate will mean you have to contact the local Advisory Committee. The court where you case was heard can give you their contact details. If you are not happy with their decision, you can then take your complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints.

Alienation DESTRUCTIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER Psychological manipulation Psychologists Psychopath Psychopathic style PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS

Parental Psychological Control

 Parenting aggression can take on different forms, such as physical aggression, verbal aggression, and psychological aggression (Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, & Runyan, 1998), and one key form of psychological aggression which is understudied is psychological control. Parental psychological control refers to parental behaviors that are intrusive and manipulative, undermining child autonomy, and characterized by guilt induction, love withdrawal, instilling anxiety, and verbal constraint (Barber, 1996;Barber & Harmon, 2002;Schaefer, 1965). In guilt induction, parents coerce children into complying with parental demands by making children feel guilty. …
… Parental psychological control has been linked to various forms of child maladjustment, including lower self-esteem, internalizing symptoms, and externalizing symptoms (Barber, 1996;Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994;Barber, Stolz, Olsen, Collins, & Burchinal, 2005). For example, parental psychological control predicted adolescent depression and antisocial behaviors even after controlling for parental support and behavioral control (Barber et al., 2005). …
… Children’s theory of mind does not develop until around 4 years old (Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001) and self-conscious emotions do not develop until around 2 years old (Muris & Meesters, 2014). This is consistent with previous research that documented the adverse effect of parental psychological control behaviors primarily in middle childhood and adolescence (Barber, 1996;Barber et al., 1994;Barber et al., 2005;Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). Future research with larger samples should examine whether child age moderates the association between parental psychological control and child maladjustment. …
Alienation Dark Triad

 Vulnerable Dark Triad  

Similarities in Environmental Etiological Factors

Developmentally, all three forms of personality pathology re either  theoretically or empirically associated with negative child hood events such as poorer parenting (less warmth and supervision;greater psychological intrusiveness) and childhood sexual, physical,or emotional abuse or neglect (e.g., Battle et al., 2004; Horton,Bleau, & Drwecki, 2006; Poythress, Skeem, & Lilienfeld, 2006).These etiological factors fit with Linehan’s (1993) definition of in invalidating environment, which is thought to be central to the development of BPD. Linehan argued that invalidating environments are those in which there is a ‘‘communication of private  experiences’’ that are ‘‘met by erratic, inappropriate, and extreme 1534  Miller, Dir, Gentile, et al. responses,’’ and she includes childhood abuse, particularly sexual abuse, as the ‘‘prototypical’’ invalidating environment (p. 49). Linehan suggests that these environments fail to teach children how to label and regulate their emotions and tolerate distress and frustration, while at the same time encouraging ‘‘extreme emotional displays’’ to provoke and elicit the expected response from the environment (p. 51).

Similarities in Current Functioning

All three members of the putative VDT manifest significant relations with a host of internalizing symptoms and disorders, such as anxiety and depression, as well as behavioral indicators of distress, such as suicidality (Pincus et al., 2009; Verona et al., 2005; Wink, 1991).For example, Wink found that vulnerable narcissism was substantially negatively correlated with self-reports of psychological well-being (r 5 .67) and psychological adjustment (  .33). Where as at least some members of the DT are negatively associated with negative affect and emotions and positively associated with self-esteem (i.e., grandiose narcissism; Miller & Campbell, 2008; Sedikides, Rudich, Gregg, Kumashiro, & Rusbult, 2004), the reverse appears to be the case for the VDT. The VDT members are  associated with higher negative affect and lower self-esteem (Pincuset al., 2009; Wink, 1991; Witt & Donnellan, 2008; Zeigler-Hill &Abraham, 2006).Both vulnerable narcissism and BPD are related to pathological adult attachment styles, such as an anxious or fearful attachment(Dickinson& Pincus, 2003;Otway &Vignoles, 2006; BPD:Mauricio,Tein, & Lopez, 2007; Meyer, Pilkonis, & Beevers, 2004). Less research exists that has examined the relations between psychopahy and specific attachment styles. Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald,Neumann, and Walker-Matthews (2002) found that psychopathy scores were significantly negatively related to ratings of closeness to family in a sample of adolescent males. Similarly, Frodi, Dernevik,Sepa, Philipson, and Bragesjo (2001) found that psychopathic offenders were most commonly classified as having a dismissive attachment style. Unfortunately, these relations have not been examined separately by the psychopathy factors. In a review of the extant literature, Salteris (2002) noted that individuals with antisocial personality disorder and those who commit violent crimes (vs. property 
crimes) tend to manifest insecure and extremely disturbed attachments. In terms of adult attachment styles, one might hypothesize that Factor 1 psychopathy would be significantly related to a dismissive attachment style (high avoidance, low anxiety), whereas Factor 2 psychopathy might be related to a fearful attachment style(high avoidance, high anxiety), which would be consistent with BPD and vulnerable narcissism.
Finally, both Factor 2 psychopathy and BPD have been associated with a number of externalizing behaviors such as substance use/abuse, aggression, and antisocial behavior (e.g., Feske, Tarter, Kirisci, & Pilkonis, 2006; Neumann & Hare, 2008; Stuart, Moore,Gordon, Ramsey, & Kahler, 2006). Because of the small literature on vulnerable narcissism, its relations with externalizing behaviors like aggression are less clear (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009; Wink, 1991),although we would expect smaller effect sizes, in part, due to the lack of substantial deficits in constraint/disinhibition.

Prevalence of ACEs by Category for CDC-Kaiser ACE Study Participants

The BRFSS ACE module was adapted from the original CDC-Kaiser ACE Study and is used to collect information on child abuse and neglect and household challenges.


ACEs Definitions

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are categorized into three groups: abuse, neglect, and household challenges. Each category is further divided into multiple subcategories. Participant demographic information is available by gender, race, age, and education. The prevalence of ACEs is organized by category.

ACEs Definitions

All ACE questions refer to the respondent’s first 18 years of life.

  • Abuse
    • Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you, insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt.
    • Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed, slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.
    • Sexual abuse: An adult, relative, family friend, or stranger who was at least 5 years older than you ever touched or fondled your body in a sexual way, made you touch his/her body in a sexual way, attempted to have any type of sexual intercourse with you.
  • Household Challenges
    • Mother treated violently: Your mother or stepmother was pushed, grabbed, slapped, had something thrown at her, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, hit with something hard, repeatedly hit for over at least a few minutes, or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or gun by your father (or stepfather) or mother’s boyfriend.
    • Substance abuse in the household: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic or a household member used street drugs.
    • Mental illness in the household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a household member attempted suicide.
    • Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced.
    • Incarcerated household member: A household member went to prison.
  • Neglect1
    • Emotional neglect: Someone in your family helped you feel important or special, you felt loved, people in your family looked out for each other and felt close to each other, and your family was a source of strength and support.2
    • Physical neglect: There was someone to take care of you, protect you, and take you to the doctor if you needed it2, you didn’t have enough to eat, your parents were too drunk or too high to take care of you, and you had to wear dirty clothes.

1Collected during Wave 2 only.
2 Items were reverse-scored to reflect the framing of the question.


The ACE Pyramid

The Family Health History and Health Appraisal questionnaires were used to collect information on child abuse and neglect, household challenges, and other socio-behavioral factors in the original CDC-Kaiser ACE Study.


The questionnaires are not copyrighted, and there are no fees for their use. If you include the ACE Study questionnaires in your research, a copy of the subsequent article(s) is requested (send to


Finding Your ACE Score

For a more trauma-informed system of care, juvenile courts and their judges are asked to understand the myriad of underlying factors that affect the lives of juveniles and their families. One of the most pervasive of these factors is exposure to trauma. To be most effective in achieving its mission, the juvenile court must both understand the role of traumatic exposure in the lives of children and engage resources and interventions that address child traumatic stress. This questionnaire is designed to determine your Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Score, originally adapted from a training with the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN). For reprint permissions, visit CDC-Kaiser Study.


Perceived Parental Warmth, and Children’s Psychological Adjustment, and Personality Dispositions

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to address three questions drawn from one of the basic postulates of parental acceptance–rejection theory: (1) To what extent are children’s perceptions of parental warmth related to their psychological adjustment? (2) To what extent are children’s perceptions of parental warmth related to their personality dispositions? (3) Do relations found in these questions vary by the gender of parents? The meta-analysis was based on 30 studies from 16 countries in five continents involving 12,087 children (52 % boys and 48 % girls). All studies included in the meta-analysis, used child versions of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire for Mothers and for Fathers (Child PARQ: Mothers and Fathers), as well as the child version of the Personality Assessment Questionnaire (Child PAQ). Results showed that perceived parental warmth correlated significantly with psychological adjustment and personality dispositions—including hostility and aggression, independence, positive self-esteem, positive self-adequacy, emotional responsiveness, emotional stability, and positive worldview of children across ethnicities, cultures, gender, and geographical boundaries.


A study of predictive role of parental acceptance rejection perceived by children on secure attachment level

The goal of this study is to identify the predictive role of parental acceptance-rejection perceived by children on the level of secure attachment to their parents. It is a descriptive study that uses the screening model, which is one of the quantitative research methods. The study population included 193 4th grade and typically developing children from government schools under the Turkish Ministry of Education in Süleymanpaşa, Tekirdağ, who were described as being from a middle socio-economic level according to TUIK (Turkish Statistics Institute) data. The students’ parents were also involved in the study. The forms used to achieve the goals were the “Demographic Data Form”, “Mother Acceptance Rejection Scale (Child Form-Short), “Father Acceptance Rejection Scale (Child Form-Short)”, “Kerns Mother Secure Attachment Scale” and “Kerns Father Secure Attachment Scale”. Study data were analysed in two stages. The first stage involved the analysis of descriptive statistics related to parental acceptance-rejection perceived by children and their level of secure attachment. The second stage involved the analysis of descriptive statistic results obtained in the first stage through Simple Regression Analysis. It was concluded from the Simple Linear Regression analysis that the level of mother acceptance-rejection perceived by children is a significant predictor of score variance related to the mother secure attachment level (□ = −.552; p < .01), while the level of father acceptance-rejection perceived by children is a significant predictor of score variance related to the father secure attachment level (□ = -.516; p < .01). The study results have revealed that perceived parental acceptance-rejection is a significant predictor of secure parental attachment.