Jane Campbell and Elisabeth Wickham discuss parental alienation in their latest article

Introduction

Over the last few years, parental alienation has become an increasingly common feature of private law cases. Allegations of alienating behaviours by the other parent often (but not always) rear their head in response to allegations of domestic abuse. Such cross-allegations of abuse tend to lead to a protraction of proceedings with an associated sharp increase in complexity, costs and, above all, parental acrimony.

What is it?

The term ‘parental alienation’ emanates from the American psychiatrist Richard Gardener who, in 1985, coined the term ‘parental alienation syndrome’. He was significantly criticised for making such a diagnosis whenever allegations of a mother resisting contact were made, regardless of the allegations made by the mother herself. More recently, criticism has been directed in the other direction – in cases where, usually, fathers counter allegations against them of domestic abuse by saying the mother is alienating the child. Alienation, when it occurs, is of course not just the domain of mothers: fathers can be alienating parents too.

In his address to Families Need Fathers in 2018, the President said that it was ‘unnecessary to determine whether Parental Alienation exists as a syndrome, the key thing is that the courts now recognise that there are some cases where a parent deliberately or inadvertently turned the mind of a child against the other parent and that this is likely to be harmful.’

In Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) 2020 EWCA Civ 568, Peter Jackson LJ said (emphasis added by the authors of this article):

‘7. At the outset, it must be acknowledged that, whether a family is united or divided, it is not uncommon for there to be difficulties in a parent-child relationship that cannot fairly be laid at the door of the other parent. Children have their own feelings and needs and where their parents are polarised they are bound to feel the effects. Situations of this kind, where the concerned parent is being no more than properly supportive, must obviously be distinguished from those where an emotionally abusive process is taking place. For that reason, the value of early fact-finding has repeatedly been emphasised.

8. As to alienation, we do not intend to add to the debate about labels. We agree with Sir Andrew McFarlane (see [2018] Fam Law 988) that where behaviour is abusive, protective action must be considered whether or not the behaviour arises from a syndrome or diagnosed condition. It is nevertheless necessary to identify in broad terms what we are speaking about. For working purposes, the CAFCASS definition of alienation is sufficient:
“When a child’s resistance/hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent.”
To that may be added that the manipulation of the child by the other parent need not be malicious or even deliberate. It is the process that matters, not the motive.

9. Where a child’s relationship with one parent is not working for no apparent good reason, signs of alienation may be found on the part of the other parent. These may include portraying the other parent in an unduly negative light to the child, suggesting that the other parent does not love the child, providing unnecessary reassurance to the child about time with the other parent, contacting the child excessively when with the other parent, and making unfounded allegations or insinuations, particularly of sexual abuse.’

The process of alienation generally leads to the child aligning themselves with the alienating parent – i.e. they sense the negativity that parent has for the other and start to feel that something bad might happen to them in the other parent’s care (even though all the evidence suggests the opposite). Typically, the child will complain to the alienating parent about the other parent leading to the alienating parent feeling vindicated. The more the child complains the more the alignment/alienation occurs. It is a vicious cycle.

It is important to remember that alienation does not have to be deliberate. It can be done unconsciously and unwittingly and an alienating parent may genuinely feel that they are protecting and promoting their child’s best interests (even though they are not).

In Re C (Parental Alienation; Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane P made clear that when allegations of parental alienations arise in family cases, the court should not focus on labels or seek to rely on an expert to establish whether there is evidence of a diagnosable syndrome. Whether or not there is parental alienation in a family is a question of fact and hence the court’s focus must be on (1) the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ in the family, if any; and (2) the impact of that behaviour on the child and their relationship with either or both parents. Hence, parental alienation should not be treated as a medical syndrome but as an abusive process of manipulation perpetrated by one parent against the other via the child (emphasis below added by the authors):

‘103. Before leaving this part of the appeal, one particular paragraph in the ACP skeleton argument deserves to be widely understood and, I would strongly urge, accepted:
‘Much like an allegation of domestic abuse; the decision about whether or not a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the Court to resolve and not a diagnosis that can or should be offered by a psychologist. For these purposes, the ACP-UK wishes to emphasise that “parental alienation” is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, but a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through, what are termed as, “alienating behaviours”. It is, fundamentally, a question of fact.‘
It is not the purpose of this judgment to go further into the topic of alienation. Most Family judges have, for some time, regarded the label of ‘parental alienation’, and the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome of that name, as being unhelpful. What is important, as with domestic abuse, is the particular behaviour that is found to have taken place within the individual family before the court, and the impact that that behaviour may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both of his/her parents. In this regard, the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ should be the court’s focus, rather than any quest to determine whether the label ‘parental alienation’ can be applied.’

What is it not?

‘Parental alienation’ and ‘implacable hostility’ are terms which are often used interchangeably and, sometimes, wrongly, in place of the other. Further, a hostile parent is not necessarily an implacably hostile parent.

Most private law cases involve parents who, at least at the outset, are hostile to each other. Commonly seen difficulties include an inability to agree arrangements (often where the solution is blindingly obvious); adopting an inflexible approach when some flexibility is demanded (e.g. sticking to the letter of the order by refusing consent for a holiday in ‘their’ time); and generally being unpleasant to and about each other. Crucially, though, in these cases, ‘spend time’ arrangements or even shared care is happening, even if neither parent actively promotes the other.

In cases where there is implacable hostility, contact happens but it is frequently frustrated. Usually, a parent feels so scorned or dislikes the other parent to such an extent that they try to hurt the other by being controlling, difficult or disruptive over the child arrangements. However, notwithstanding this, the child still loves the other parent, wants to see them and is happy in their care.

In cases of parental alienation or where ‘alienating behaviours’ exist, the alienating parent is on a campaign to alienate the child from the other parent and thus the behaviour in question is abusive and goes way beyond implacable hostility.

Alienating behaviours to identify

Cafcass opine (inter alia) that:

‘There is no single definition of ‘alienating behaviours’. We use the term to describe behaviours where one parent or carer expresses an ongoing pattern of negative attitudes and communication about the other parent or carer that have the potential or intention to undermine or even destroy the child’s relationship with their other parent or carer. These behaviours can result from a parent’s feelings of unresolved anger and a desire, conscious or not, to punish the other parent or carer. Alienating behaviours range in intensity and their impact on children.’

“These behaviours can include negative attitudes, communications and beliefs that denigrate, demean, vilify, malign, ridicule or dismiss the child’s other parent. It includes conveying false beliefs or stories to, and withholding positive information from, the child about the other parent, together with the relative absence of observable positive attitudes and behaviours.” (Johnston and Sullivan, 2020).

“Alienating behaviours can also include spurning, terrorising, isolating, corrupting, or exploiting, and not responding appropriately to the child’s emotional needs. These tactics can foster a false belief that the parent who has been subject to the alienating behaviour is dangerous or unworthy. Children may adapt their own behaviours and feelings to the alienating parent to ensure that their attachment needs are met.” (Baker, 2010).

While alienating behaviours can be expressed by just one parent, when it does exist it is often a combination of both parents behaving in ways that lead to the child developing a negative view of one of their parents and then rejecting or resisting spending time with that parent. Siding with one parent is one way of a child finding a way of coping and holding on to at least one parental attachment.’

The Cafcass website provides helpful documents which are freely available, including a guide called ‘Indicators of child resistance/refusal to spending time with a parent such as alienating behaviours’ and the ‘Alienating Behaviours Thinking Tool’. The latter sets out the types of behaviour a child may show if exposed to alienating behaviour or implacable hostility. Before listing them here, it is important to stress that there can be a good reason why the child might display such behaviour, such as exposure to domestic abuse or a lack of attachment. Alienation raises its head when those factual scenarios have been ruled out. The Cafcass tools also list the types of behaviour commonly exhibited by the alienating parent alongside the common characteristics of an alienated parent.

Child’s Behaviour

1. Idealising one parent and devaluing the other.
2. Trivial/false/weak and/or irrational reasons to justify dislike or hatred of parent.
3. Allegations of harm made which following investigation are unsubstantiated or found not to have occurred (not borne out by findings made at a finding of fact hearing).
4. Rejections and perceptions unjustified or disproportionate to the parent’s behaviours.
5. Talking openly and without prompts about the perceived shortcomings of the parent.
6. Revising the family history to diminish or eliminate positive memories of the parent including reporting things they could not possibly remember i.e. because they would have been too young to remember it.
7. Extending their dislike to that parent’s extended family.
8. An otherwise compliant child appearing to defy attempts to encourage contact.
9. Showing no guilt or ambivalence regarding their attitudes towards the parent.
10. Giving scripted accounts of that parent i.e. showing signs of being coached, using adult language or lacking conviction in what they are saying.
11. Saying they are fearful of the parent but in fact appearing aggressive or belligerent.
12. Being a compliant child whilst defying court orders or professionals.

With older/intelligent/well-educated children, it can be difficult to disentangle whether the sophisticated language they might use is their own or not. However, there are other guides as to whether alienation is occurring, including:

 Disproportionate reactions e.g. tremendous upset to kind gestures such as presents or cards from the alienated parent.
 Poor justifications for their dislike of a parent.
 Amplification of trivial incidents.
 Being rude and disrespectful about the parent.
 Alleging a parent is ‘fake’ in their affection when confronted with evidence to the
contrary e.g. a photo demonstrating a previously positive relationship (note – this is in contrast to a genuinely abused child who usually wants to repair the parent/child relationship).

Alienating Parent’s Behaviour

1. Actively denigrating and exaggerating flaws of the other parent (and may ask others to do this also)
2. Exercising active authority over the child’s life save in relation to contact i.e. saying ‘I won’t make them go’ etc.
3. Using loaded terms: ‘I will not force or drag my child to contact’.
4. Coaching the child.
5. Applying to the court for an order to reduce or stop the child’s time with the other parent where there have been previous proceedings and there are no safeguarding or welfare issues.
6. Moving locality to make contact/shared care unworkable.
7. Refusing to hear anything positive about the child’s time with the other parent,
8. Threatening to withdraw love from the child unless they reject the other parent/their family.
9. Showing no concern that the child is missing a relationship with the other parent or the impact of that.
10. Unjustifiably portraying the other parent as dangerous (including by making false allegations of physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse).
11. Gifts/cards etc are destroyed, ignored or passed on with disdain.
12. False information given to the child about the other parent.
13. Not correcting the child’s rudeness to the other parent (but would do this if child was rude to another).
14. Trying to stop professionals from arranging to see the child or to exert control over professionals.
15. Making the child aware of their own distress and emotional fragility.
16. Insisting on being present during contact when it has been assessed as safe.

The following could be added to this list: The child showing obvious and disproportionate distress at handovers, calling/texting the child throughout contact, saying contact should be taken ‘at the child’s pace’, arranging activities during the child’s time with the other parent, and/or saying they want to go to ADR/therapy etc when in fact they are seeking to delay progress and have no genuine desire to resolve matters.

Alienated parents’ possible characteristics which may add to this dynamic:

1. Lack of empathy with the child.
2. Pushing issues such as telephone calls, turning up at school when they know child finds it embarrassing.
3. A harsh or rigid parenting style.
4. Behaving in an angry, demanding, intimidating manner (not amounting to abuse).
5. Displaying outrage at a challenge to their authority.
6. Apportioning blame to widespread sources including the child.
7. Counter rejecting behaviour.
8. Attempting to induce guilt in the child.

These types of behaviour make such parents vulnerable to being manipulated as they give the alienator perceived excuses or justification.

Family Justice Council draft guidance

The Family Justice Council opened a consultation in August 2023 by publishing its ‘Draft Guidance on Responding to allegations of alienating behaviour’ (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/For-Consultation-FJC-Draft-Guidance-on-Responding-to-allegations-of-alienating-behaviour-August-2023.pdf). That consultation closed in October 2023 but it has certainly added to the debate and to the available guidance in this area albeit that the finalised guidance is still awaited. The draft guidance quotes the observations of President Sir Andrew McFarlane in Re C (‘Parental Alienation’; Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) suggesting that a court would need to be satisfied that three elements are established before it can conclude that alienating behaviours have occurred:

a) the child is refusing, resisting, or reluctant to engage in, a relationship with a parent or carer;

b) the refusal, resistance or reluctance is not consequent on the actions of the non-resident parent towards the child or the resident parent; and

c) the resident parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child’s refusal, resistance, or reluctance to engage in a relationship with the other parent.

The draft guidance states that while allegations of alienating behaviours are mostly made against the parent with whom the child lives, examples of a non-resident parent engaging in alienation can and do occur.

Parental behaviours identified in the draft guidance as evidence of alienation include:

 repeatedly or constantly criticising or belittling the other.
 unjustifiably limiting or restricting contact or undermining contact.
 forbidding discussion about the other parent.
 creating the impression that the other parent dislikes or does not love the child, or has harmed them or intends them harm.
 denying emotional responsiveness to the other parent or spurning, terrorising, isolating, corrupting, or exploiting them.

The draft guidance also includes sections on case management requirements; the role a Guardian can/should play in alienation cases; psychological manipulation; next steps if findings of alienating behaviours are made; and the use of experts in cases in which alienating behaviours are alleged (clearly based on the Re C judgment referenced above).

Case Law

Recent case law in this area includes the following:

Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) – The primary focus of this appeal was a decision about whether or not to re-open a fact-finding after the mother asserted that the instructed expert psychologist had not been suitably qualified. The appeal was dismissed. This is the McFarlane P decision referred to in this article in relation to the definition of the concept of parental alienation and it being a question of fact rather than a syndrome to be diagnosed by an expert or a judge. It follows that the allegations of alienating behaviours must be tested by the court by way of fact-finding before a court goes on to consider the necessity of any expert instruction in relation to recommendations for therapeutic intervention and to help inform the final welfare decisions.

Re A and B (Children: ‘Parental Alienation’) (No 5) [2023] EWHC 1864 – This decision by Keehan J includes a helpful summary of the relevant law. These were long-standing proceedings of some 4 years in a case with ‘a long and tortuous history’. A number of experts in the field had become involved with the family: Dr Julet Butler (child psychiatrist), Dr Janine Braier (clinical psychologist) and Ms Karen Woodall (psychotherapist). Keehan J made clear that the court had no hesitation in accepting the opinions and recommendations of Ms Woodall in her report and in her oral evidence at the fact-finding hearing. Findings of alienating behaviours were made against the mother who the court found to have ‘pursued her own agenda and objectives without any regard whatsoever to the well-being and welfare best interests of the children’ [95]. ‘The mother has had and has a very distorted and false view of her children, her abusive role in their lives and the devoted care given to them by this father’ [96].

Warwickshire County Council v The Mother & Ors [2023] EWHC 399 (Fam) – On the facts of this case, Lieven J concluded at a final hearing in care proceedings that whilst the court should respond with exceptional diligence and take whatever effective measures are available in cases where findings of parental alienation are made, the wishes and feelings of the 11 and 13 year old subject children (despite having been brought about by manipulation by their mother) tipped the balance in favour of the children ultimately being returned to the mother’s care, notwithstanding and in the face of expert opposition. A transfer of residence to the father had been attempted but had failed miserably. The case serves to underline the limits of the court’s powers and the devastating impact which alienating behaviours can have on a child and their family.

Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 (B) – This was a fact-finding hearing before HHJ Middleton-Roy in lengthy private law proceedings during which the father had consistently accused the mother of parental alienation. At the start of the fact-finding hearing he did not technically proceed on the basis of parental alienation but ‘vigorously’ asserted that the mother had ‘negatively influenced the children against him’, thereby damaging the children and using them in a pattern of abuse against the father. The mother in turn accused the father of verbal and emotional abuse of herself and the children during their relationship, coercive and controlling behaviour towards her and the children and financial abuse of her. The relevant law is set out in this lengthy judgment from paragraph 59. The court concluded that the father had not been able to prove any of his allegations against the mother to the requisite civil standard. Conversely, the court found that it was the father’s pernicious actions that had led to both his children rejecting him for reasons which the court considered entirely justifiable.

Re T (A Child) [2024] EWHC 59 (Fam) – The issue to be decided by Arbuthnot J in this case was whether or not contact should continue between a 15-year-old boy and his father. The boy’s nearly 18-year-old sister S had stopped seeing her father following her 16th birthday. There had been numerous sets of proceedings with at least 6 judgments of 3 different judges who had all made findings of parental alienation against the mother. The mother had attempted to appeal every judgment given but had been unsuccessful each time. She did not accept any of the findings ever made against her. Arbuthnot J agreed that the mother had been dishonest and that she had manipulated her children into believing that she was a victim of the abuse of their violent father. Given the son’s age and maturity, his wishes and feeling were given great weight – despite the fact that these had been brought about by his mother’s manipulative behaviour since he was a young child. The court made an order for contact until his 16th birthday only and not beyond. Arbuthnot J concluded: ‘As a general observation, this case is exceptional but not unique and is an example of how little the court, even the High Court, can do when a party, whether the mother or father is determined to cut the other out of their children’s lives. I have no doubt this has been the mother’s aim for many years and the court has been able to recognise her manipulation but has been powerless to ensure that the children have a balanced upbringing knowing both parents and both sides of the family. It is a source of frustration and regret’ [para 154].

Conclusion

Robust case management is the road map through alienation cases; where every decision is, or should be, made with an eye to getting to a position where a final determination can be properly and fairly made. Early identification of potential parental alienation as a key issue is essential. Time is of the essence in circumstances where there is ongoing and potentially irreparable damage being caused to the subject child(ren). Furthermore, a decision made at one hearing may significantly impact the case further down the line. There must be an early gathering of evidence from all relevant third-party organisations and sources such as e.g. the local authority, the police and school or nursery. If on review of that early evidence, the allegations of alienating behaviour do not appear clearly unfounded, unmeritorious and/or exaggerated, an early fact-finding must be vigorously pursued. Equally, it is never too early to consider appointing a Guardian and PD16A 17.2 states that implacable hostility is a valid reason to appoint a Guardian. The input of a Guardian could help to provide a swift or swifter resolution. Undoubtedly, parental alienation cases are among the most complex and case management must be nuanced and necessitates consideration and care. Judicial continuity is key (see McFarlane LJ’s (as he then was) observations in A (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104 from paragraph 60).

The recent case law highlights that the warning of Balcombe LJ in Re J (A Minor) (Contact) [1994] 1 FLR 729 [736] is still very much on point in relation to the devastating effect of this type of emotional abuse on children and families:

‘.. I would like to make three general points. The first is that Judges should be very reluctant to allow the implacable hostility of one parent (usually the parent who has a residence order in his or her favour), to deter them from making a contact order where they believe the child’s welfare requires it. The danger of allowing the implacable hostility of the residential parent (usually the mother), to frustrate the court’s decision is too obvious to require repetition on my part.’

Jane Campbell and Elisabeth Wickham October 2024

Related areas

• Parental Alienation
• Private Law Children