New guidance on 'parental alienation' in family court battles

Family courts in England and Wales should give more weight to allegations of domestic abuse than to claims of "parental alienation", according to new guidance.

When parents have separated, and are arguing over their children, they turn to the family court. In these private law children cases claim and counter-claim are common.

One parent, usually the mother, may accuse the other parent of abuse. The father may counter that she has manipulated the children against him - termed parental alienation.

How the court responds can have lifelong consequences for the family, as the judge has to decide whom the children live with, and what time they spend with the other parent.

Wednesday's report from the advisory Family Justice Council says "despite the lack of research evidence, and international condemnation, reference is still made to the discredited concept of 'parental alienation syndrome'."

This is the idea that children show a recognisable pattern of behaviours if they have been manipulated by one parent against the other.

The guidance describes this as a "harmful pseudo science".

It says there are genuine cases where alienating behaviours "impact" a child's relationship with the other parent, but they are "relatively rare".

According to research, over half of all private law cases involving children include allegations of domestic abuse.

It is not known how many include parental alienation, though judges have observed a rise in their own cases.

The guidance says "allegations of domestic abuse and 'parental alienation' cannot be equated" - pointing out that domestic abuse is a crime.

It is increasingly common for the parent accused of abuse, usually the father, to respond by claiming that the mother has turned the children against them.

These cases can drag out for many years, as the relationship between parents deteriorate, and children are affected.

Some come to court multiple times.

Where there is a claim of parental alienation psychologists can become involved, and their evidence is often influential.

In a case heard by the High Court late last year, Judge Mrs Justice Judd presided over a case involving two parents who had separated in 2017.

The mother told the family court then the father had abused her, and was granted a non-molestation order - injunctions used in urgent abuse cases.

The father had the right to contact with the children, supervised at first, but three years later, the father came to court saying contact between him and the children had broken down.

A psychologist, Melanie Gill, was asked to provide a "global assessment" of the family, which she filed in 2022.

She said the mother had unconsciously turned the two secondary school-age children against their father, something which the father seized on.

The mother was very worried she would lose her children, as she told The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, though she did win her case.

The new guidance says it is "inappropriate" for an expert to determine whether parental alienation has taken place.

It says that is for the court to decide, and a psychologist may be brought in later to advise how it should be dealt with.

The council also says that when a child rejects a parent, that is not enough to determine alienation.

The court has to examine whether that rejection is justified, perhaps by the parent's own behaviour. And there must be evidence of manipulation.

The Family Justice Council includes senior judges and lawyers along with experts and others who represent users of family courts. Their guidance has been welcomed by some lawyers and charities.

Lucy Reed KC, founder of the Transparency Project - a charity that aims to explain family law - said it would have a major impact, making it much harder to prove "alienating behaviour".

She said it would help courts to identify cases where allegations were being used as a litigation tactic, or as a means of silencing domestic abuse survivors.

Charlotte Proudman, who has represented many parents accused of parental alienation, said it was a "great step forward".

The charity Women's Aid said it was "a positive step in the right direction".

However it said the guidance should be more child-centred, saying it was "concerning" that there was no reference to child sexual abuse.

Sam Morfey of the charity Both Parents Matter, formerly Families Need Fathers, said they welcomed the guidance, but added there was a need for recognition that "unfounded claims of abuse… can be evidence of alienation and a deliberate attempt to damage a child-parent relationship".