FREE CHAPTER from ‘A Practical Guide to Parental Alienation in Private and Public Law Children Cases’ by Sam King QC & Frankie Shama

CHAPTER ONE – DEFINING PARENTAL
ALIENATION

Introduction

Any consideration of parental alienation must start with the concept of parental responsibility as defined by section 3(1) of the Children Act 1989 (‘the 1989 Act’). Parental responsibility includes “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property.”

The duties and responsibilities that parental responsibility gives rise to has been emphasised throughout the case law. Sir James Munby, when President of the Family Division, observed in Re H-B (Contact)1:

“…parental responsibility is more, much more than a mere lawyer’s concept or a principle of law. It is a fundamentally important reflection of the realities of the human condition, of the very essence of the relationship of parent and child. Parental responsibility exists outside and anterior to the law. Parental responsibility involves duties owed by the parent not just to the court. First and foremost, and even more importantly, parental responsibility involves duties owed by each parent to the child.”2

Crucially, parental responsibility involves establishing contact between a parent and child when it is safe and beneficial to do so. As stated by McFarlane LJ (as he then was) in the earlier case of Re W (Direct Contact),3 “[w]here … it is plainly in the best interests of a child to spend time with the other parent, tough or not, part of the responsibility of the parent with care must be the duty and responsibility to deliver what the child needs, hard though that may be.”4

Upon separation, the majority of parents are able to foster a cooperative co-parenting relationship and make arrangements by agreement about the division of the children’s time. In the majority of cases, the issue with which the court has to deal is how much time the subject children are to spend with each parent, rather than the principle of contact. Therefore, once the regime is defined, the pattern is established and the issue is resolved. However, there are a number of cases where the contact agreed or ordered does not take place. In such cases, the court may be asked to intervene.

The case law has emphasised that parental responsibility in such circumstances necessitates a parent not unreasonably ‘shirking’ responsibility. McFarlane LJ in Re W (Direct Contact) notes that it is “not … acceptable for a parent to shirk that responsibility and simply say ‘no’ to reasonable strategies designed to improve the situation in this regard.”5 This has been endorsed by Sir James Munby in Re H-B (Contact), who notes that it is similarly not “acceptable for a parent to shirk their responsibility by sheltering behind the assertion that the child will not do, or even that the child is adamantly opposed to doing something…6 He goes on to note:

As McFarlane LJ observed (para 75) [of Re W (Direct Contact)], the responsibility of being a parent can be tough, it may be ‘a very big ask’. But that is what parenting is all about. There are many things which they ought to do that children may not want to do or even refuse to do: going to the dentist, going to visit some ‘boring’ elderly relative, going to school, doing homework or sitting an examination, the list is endless. The parent’s job, exercising all their parental skills, techniques and stratagems – which may include use of both the carrot and the stick and, in the case of the older child, reason and argument –, is to get the child to do what it does not want to do. That the child’s refusal cannot as such be a justification for parental failure is clear: after all, children whose education or health is prejudiced by parental shortcomings may be taken away from their parents and put into public care.”7

The key tension that the court will need to grapple with in circumstances where there is a refusal or resistance by a child to contact is why that contact is not taking place. On the one hand, it may be argued that contact is not taking place for perfectly legitimate reasons. On the other, it may be argued that contact is being opposed or frustrated by one parent. Allegations may be made that one parent is contributing to the intractable situation, or that they are alienating the child. It is this tension which is the subject of this book.

The differences between implacable hostility, Parental Alienation Syndrome and parental alienation

The last two decades have seen the evolution in our understanding of how and why the relationship between a child and their parent can be compromised or frustrated. While the focus has been on estrangement for reasons of negative parental influence, there are reasons other than the process of hostile manipulation, which must be distinguished. The court has tried to grapple with this issue through use of a variety of terms, including implacable hostility, Parental Alienation Syndrome, and parental alienation.

Implacable hostility

The use of implacable hostility as a term of art in cases of thwarted parent child relationships8, can be traced back as far back as the 1990s including in the decision of Re J (A Minor) (Contact),9 when Balcombe LJ suggested 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.”10

However, the modern understanding of the question of how and why the relationship between a child and their parent can be compromised or frustrated really started with Re L, Re V, Re M and Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence).11 In this decision, the court considered expert psychiatric evidence that had been put before it from Drs Sturge and Glaser12, which provided the court with a definition in the form of reasons for a resident parent taking a position of implacable hostility. These included:

(a) A fully justified fear of harm or abduction resulting from any direct contact with the non-resident parent.

(b) A fear of violence or other threat and menace to herself if the non-resident parent has indirect contact to her through the child, i.e. it could lead to direct contact.

(c) Post-traumatic symptoms in the custodial parent which are acutely exacerbated by the prospect or the fact of contact.

(d) The aftermath of a relationship in which there was a marked imbalance in the power exercised by the two parents and where the mother fears she will be wholly undermined and become helpless and totally inadequate again if there is any channel of contact between herself and the ex-partner, even when that only involves the child. The child can be used as a weapon in such a bid to continue to hold power over the mother. As in (a), (b), and (c) above this can be a sequelae of domestic violence.

(e) Wholly biased hostility which is not based on real events or experience. This may be conscious and malign or perceived to be true. The latter encompass the full continuum from misperceptions and misunderstandings through overvalued ideas to delusional states. The former may result from a simple wish to wipe the slate clean and start again and can be seen after relationships that were initially highly romantic or idealised and for the breakdown of which the woman can only account for by vilifying the partner in order to avoid facing the possibility that the breakdown in the relationship was her failure and amounts to rejection.”

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

By the time Re L, Re V, Re M and Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence) was before the court the term PAS had been coined, and a tension existed between the definition of implacable hostility and how and if it differed from PAS. From 1985 onwards the child psychologist Richard Gardner produced a number of books and articles on the subject of PAS, and provided the following definition:

The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a childhood disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a good, loving parent—a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present, the child’s animosity may be justified and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable.”13

In Re L, Re V, Re M and Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence), in the part of Dame Butler-Sloss’s (then PFD)judgment devoted to Re M, while recognising that “some parents, particularly mothers, are responsible for alienating their children from their father’s without good reason”, it was noted that the report from Drs Sturges and Glaser observed that the use of PAS was both controversial—its existence was “not recognised” and “not universally accepted”—and potentially unhelpful in that it pathologised behaviour (and its effect) and suggested a need for mental health professionals to play an expert role.14 There was a risk arising from this of incorrect assumptions being made about the process at work and, as a corollary, the intervention needed to address it. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision and the work of Drs Sturges and Glaser the term PAS fell out of favour, and it was considered to be better to discuss the issue of resistance to parental contact in the context of implacable hostility cases or implacable situations.

Crucially, while PAS assumes a cause (from a misguided or malign resident parent), leading to prescribed intervention, implacable hostility is simply a statement aimed at understanding particular situations, for which a range of explanations are possible, and with no single prescribed solution.

Eighteen years after Re L, Re V, Re M and Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence), in his keynote address to the NAGALRO Annual Conference when McFarlane LJ (as he then was) stated:

It is, in my view, unhelpful to look in every such case to see if it is possible to identify a formal label of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. In such cases, that there has been ‘alienation’, with a small ‘A’, will normally be a given; it is that factor which will often render the case ‘intractable’. The existence of alienation of itself can only be damaging to a child. It must be grim to grow up having a profoundly negative view of one of your parents. In some cases such a negative view may be justified by the actions of that parent, but often life is not so black and white and a more nuanced, ordinary and tolerable view of both parents will have been justified had an imbalanced status quo as to contact not become established.”15

McFarlane LJ (as he then was) further noted in his keynote address at the Families Need Fathers Conference 2018:

I wish to say something now about “alienation”. For some time there has been debate as to whether or not the holy grail of “parental alienation syndrome” actually exists. For my part, I have never regarded it as important to determine definitively whether or not psychologists or psychiatrists would be justified in attributing the label “syndrome” to any particular behaviour in this regard. In time gone by, there was similar debate as to whether a diagnosis could be made of “Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy” in such cases the focus of the Family Court, rightly, moved away from any psychological/psychiatric debate in order to concentrate on the particular behaviour of the particular parent in relation to the particular child in each individual case. If that behaviour was found to be abusive then action was taken, irrespective of whether or not a diagnosis of a particular personality or mental health condition in the parent could be made. 

In my view, “alienation” should be approached in the same way. From my experience as a first instance judge, albeit now more than 7 years ago, I readily accept that in some cases a parent can, either deliberately or inadvertently, turn the mind of their child against the other parent so that the child holds a wholly negative view of that other parent where such a negative view cannot be justified by reason of any past behaviour or any aspect of the parent-child relationship. Further, where that state of affairs has come to pass, it is likely to be emotionally harmful for the child to grow up in circumstances which maintain an unjustified and wholly negative view of the absent parent.”16

Also in 2018, in the case of Re D (A Child: Parental Alienation)17, HHJ Bellamy deployed the heading ‘Parental Alienation’ and made explicit reference to the fault-lines in the debate surrounding PAS and parental alienation:

Parental alienation syndrome is a theory first propounded by American child psychiatrist Richard Gardner in 1985. For the mother, Mr Hadden MBE has produced an article published by Carol S Bruch in 2001, Parental alienation syndrome and parental alienation: getting it wrong in child custody cases, in which the author systematically demolishes Gardner’s approach, which she refers to as ‘junk science’. For my part I have no difficulty in accepting Bruch’s criticisms of Gardner’s work in that area. That does not, though, diminish the very real concerns about the problem of alienation in general and parental alienation in particular.”18

It remains the case that the term PAS is largely unused nowadays, and the need to formally label it as a ‘syndrome’ has fallen away. The proponents for and against the recognition of both the terms parental alienation and PAS continue to argue on one side or another, and no doubt Peter Jackson LJ hoped to quieten what some consider to be a distracting discourse in relation to nomenclature, noting in Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult)19:

As to alienation, we do not intend to add to the issue 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.”20

Parental alienation

In discussing parental alienation in the 2011 case of Re S (Transfer of Residence)21, HHJ Bellamy discusses the expert evidence provided by child and adolescent psychiatrist, Dr Weir, saying as follows:

43. In his first report Dr Weir gave this description of the concept of alienation:

‘There are children who show an extraordinary degree of animosity towards a parent with whom they once had a loving relationship. Most of these children will show some or all of [a cluster of psychological responses]. Within an individual child (and between children in the same family) the presence of the features can vary rapidly over time and place, but in their full manifestation are so surprising and unique as to be unforgettable. The proposed term “Alienation” applies only to the cluster of psychological responses in the child with no need to presume a deliberate campaign of denigration by one parent. There is now research data supporting a multifactorial aetiology for “Alienation” following parental separation, involving contributions from both parents and vulnerabilities within the child.’

44. In my judgment of 15 June 2009 I accepted both the concept of alienation and the fact that S is alienated from his father. For some weeks after the local authority became involved in this case it was unclear to me whether the local authority accepted either the concept of alienation or Dr Weir’s assessment that S is alienated from his father. I note that in the Court of Appeal, counsel for the local authority described Dr Weir as ‘an evangelist for the concept of alienation’. […]

46. In the light of the considerable body of evidence I have heard and read in this case over the last 3 years, the research literature that has been produced and my experience of dealing with other high conflict cases involving different experts, I am satisfied that Dr Weir’s evidence as to the concept of alienation as a feature of some high conflict parental disputes may today be regarded as being mainstream.”22

The key question is: does parental alienation amount to the same thing as implacable hostility? Many contend that the two do not entirely or comfortably overlap. That is unsurprising given the more expansive definition of implacable hostility offered by Drs Sturges and Glaser in the report considered above, sees arguably only four of the five paragraphs characterised as examples of implacable hostility matching the defining features of parental alienation, which as we shall come onto, are largely focused around unjustified responses. Only (e) of Drs Sturges’ and Glaser’s definition refers to hostility which is not based on real events or experience.

The use of the term parental alienation (minus the word ‘syndrome’) has become the preferred term, and whilst initially used interchangeably with intractable hostility in judgments, it appears to have now come to describe a different phenomenon.

In a podcast from Community Care from September 201823, Sarah Parsons, principal social worker and assistant director at the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (‘Cafcass’) said:

I think one of the things that we would want to add to that is that ‘implacable hostility’ is an adult-centred term. It’s about the relationship between the adults. What we want to do all the time as children’s social workers is to think of the impact of that behaviour on the child, that the implacable hostilities between two parents doesn’t really convey the same sense of meaning as alienation, which intrinsically involves the child aligning with one parent or the other and rejecting one parent. So it’s a term used but it is distinctly different from parental alienation.”

Similarly, in the more recent case law, the clearest definition of implacable hostility can be found in Re B (a child)24 where King LJ explains that:

Implacable hostility is exactly that: a case where one parent has become (usually irrationally and for poor motives) implacably opposed to contact taking place between a child and his or her absent parent. That is . . . or may be very different from a case where a child has become alienated from a parent.”25

It is therefore possible to differentiate between the two concepts.

In 2019 there was a cluster of cases in which the term parental alienation featured in the title: Re T (Parental Alienation)26 before HHJ Raeside (sitting as a High Court Judge); Re H (Parental Alienation)27 before Keehan J and Re A (Children) (Parental Alienation)28 before HHJ Wildblood QC. Following that, the trend has continued with a series of four cases in 2020 in respect of the same children: Re A and B (Parental Alienation: No.1, No.2, No.3 and No.4).29 In those four cases, which also came before Keehan J, the court was entirely comfortable with using the label parental alienation, explicitly referring to the expertise of those instructed as experts in the field of parental alienation.30

Anecdotally, it is also increasingly common in practice to hear the phrase parental alienation used frequently by lay clients seeking to convey a sense of disaffection with the quality and quantity of time spent with their children.

Even so, whilst parental alienation has become the preferred term, its use may still remain relatively rare in the context of private children law cases. In October 2021, Lucy Reed published an article through the Transparency Project entitled ‘Parental Alienation – what can we tell from published judgments?’31 In preparation for writing the article, she undertook research into the case law and recorded that her survey of the preceding year identified only 29 judgments which specifically included the terms ‘parental alienation’ and ‘alienation.’ That said, it was noted that these published judgments are unlikely to be a representative sample – most of the published judgments for example were from judges of High Court level, and the sample does not adequately capture the work of most Circuit Judges, District Judges and Magistrates sitting up and down the country.

Defining parental alienation

There is a significant amount of academic debate in respect of the definition of parental alienation. Whilst largely outside the scope of this book, the 2018 report published by Cascade Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre outlines some of the research literature. The report arrives at a generally accepted position that parental alienation refers to “the unwarranted rejection of the non-custodial parent characterised by the child’s extreme negativity towards the alienated parent due to the deliberate or unintentional actions of the alienating parent so as to adversely affect the relationship with the alienated parent.”32 It notes however that there is also a paucity of empirical research into parental alienation, and what exists is dominated by a few key authors.

An important step in the defining and recognising parental alienation in the UK came in October 2018, when Cafcass published their assessment framework to support Family Court Advisers (‘FCAs’) in advising the court in private law children matters. The assessment framework is called the Child Impact Assessment Framework (‘CIAF’), and it brought together both new and existing guidance. It explicitly engages with the issue of parental alienation, providing guidance and tools for FCAs to use in managing cases in which a child refused or resisted spending time with one of their parents.

The Cafcass website and guidelines now fully embrace and employ the terminology of parental alienation. While recognising that there is no single accepted definition, Cafcass recognises parental alienation as “the unjustified resistance or hostility from a child towards one parent as a result of the psychological manipulation by the other parent.”33 Importantly, while wishing to avoid labels, the Cafcass definition is given express endorsement by Peter Jackson LJ in Court of Appeal in Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult). It is noted:

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.”34

Indeed, frequently the court is met with situations where the hostile parent tells the court they are supportive of contact but the child is resistant, failing to acknowledge their behaviour may be causative (intentionally or inadvertently) in shaping or influencing the child’s views. It is easy, therefore, to see why Peter Jackson LJ added the last paragraph to the Cafcass definition.

Alienating behaviours

The starting point in any cases involving allegations of alienation will be determining what is going on for the child. In Re E (A Child)35, Hedley J puts it as follows:

It is important for me to recognise in cases such as this that one must take seriously the fact that child expresses firm opposition to contact, but one must ask seriously: why that is the case? It may be that the child genuinely opposes contact. In those cases it is usually relatively simple, but not always, but usually relatively simple to identify a reason or reasons why that should be so. In other cases one finds opposition that is, of course, superficially real and genuine but is in fact a protection for the child against finding herself in endless conflict with the residential parent, upon whom, as in this case, she is wholly dependent36

The CIAF encourages FCAs to look at the child’s experience as a whole, and the various reasons why a child may resist post-separation time with a parent. This can include appropriate justified rejection situations due to domestic abuse or other forms of harmful parenting such as substance misuse and legitimate affinity, alignment or attachment issues, all of which may provide legitimate explanations as to a child’s objections (as will be further explored in Chapter 3: Parental alienation and domestic abuse). However, as part of the evaluation of the reasons for a child’s resistance, parental alienation should be considered, and whether the child is being subjected to alienating behaviours.

Cafcass defines alienating behaviours as “behaviours to describe circumstances where there is an ongoing pattern of negative attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of one parent (or carer) that have the potential or expressed intent to undermine or obstruct the child’s relationship with the other parent. It is one of a number of reasons why a child may reject or resist spending time with one parent post-separation.”37

Cafcass notes that behaviours and indicators can include negative attitudes, and behaviours 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. It also includes 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. As a result of these experiences, children may adapt their own behaviours and feelings to the alienating parent to ensure that their attachment needs are met.38

Cafcass FCAs are encouraged to utilise a number of tools developed as part of the CIAF, including the ‘Alienating Behaviours Thinking Tool’,39 in order to assist with identifying alienation behaviours in children. This tool states that behaviours exhibited by a child where they have experienced alienation or implacable hostility include (but are not limited to):

  • The child’s opinion of a parent is unjustifiably one sided, all good or all bad; idealises one parent and devalues the other.

  • Trivial, false, weak and/or irrational reasons to justify dislike or hatred.

  • Allegations of harm are made against the rejected parent which, following investigation are either unsubstantiated or found not to have occurred.

  • Reactions and perceptions are unjustified or disproportionate to parent’s behaviours. This is often based around a single incident or alleged incident.

  • Talks openly and without prompting about the rejected parent’s perceived shortcomings

  • Revises history to eliminate or diminish the positive memories of the previously beneficial experiences with the rejected parent. May report events that they could not possibly remember.

  • Extends dislike/ hatred to extended family of rejected parent (rejection by association).

  • Where otherwise compliant children appear to defy the resident parent’s verbal and observed attempts to encourage contact.

  • No guilt, or ambivalence regarding their attitude towards the rejected parent.

  • Speech about rejected parent appears scripted, it has an artificial quality; no conviction; uses adult language; has a rehearsed quality.

  • Claims to be fearful but is aggressive, confrontational, even belligerent.

  • Otherwise compliant children who do not recognise the authority of professionals or the court.

It also identifies behaviours which may be demonstrated by a parent who intermittently or persistently alienates a child. These include (but again are not limited to):

  • Actively denigrates and exaggerates flaws of the other parent to the child, directly or indirectly e.g. may ask others to do this also.

  • A resident parent with authority over all aspects of a child’s life but abdicates parental responsibility regarding the relationship with the other parent (e.g. ‘I won’t make them do something they don’t want to do.’)

  • A resident parent who will not ‘force’ or ‘drag’ a child to contact and uses those or other negatively loaded terms.

  • Coaches or instructs the child in what to say to professionals and others about negative experiences of the rejected parent.

  • Where a resident parent applies to the court to reduce the amount of time the child spends with the other parent, particularly where there have been previous proceedings, and there appear to be no safety or welfare issues.

  • Where a resident parent moves locality without agreement and a shared care arrangement or significant contact arrangement becomes unworkable.

  • Refusal to hear positive comments about other parent; quick to discount child’s good times as trivial and unimportant.

  • Overt and covert threats to withdraw love and affection from child unless other parent, and/or siblings that live with the other parent, are rejected.

  • Expresses no concern or empathy that the child is missing out on a previously positive relationship with the other parent. Is disinterested in the impact this may have on their development and identity.

  • Portrays the other parent as dangerous (and this is not justified). False or fabricated allegations of physical abuse, sexual, and/or emotional abuse or a single incident has disproportionate levels of fear or risk associated.

  • Telephone messages, gifts, and communications from the other parent to child are persistently destroyed, ignored, or passed on to the child with disdain.

  • False information repeated to child; distorts history and may make false allegations to professionals and in court proceedings.

  • Does not correct child’s rude, defiant behaviour directed toward the other parent but would not permit child to do this with others.

  • Is reluctant to allow professionals to make arrangements to see the child privately or tries to exert control over the enquiries the professional makes.

  • Makes the child aware of their own distress and emotional fragility.

  • Where a resident parent insists on being present (in person or on media) during contact time that has been assessed as safe or where it has been previously agreed was safe, without significant event to alter this view.

  • Makes complaints against professionals for harming the children by promoting time with the other parent.

The above lists do not however capture the full spectrum of alienating behaviours and there are a number of case law examples throughout this book which may prove useful. At perhaps the most extreme end is a parent making false allegations of sexual abuse,40 including inculcating a child with false beliefs of the same.41

The tool finally outlines behaviours that may be exhibited by a rejected parent which may contribute to the dynamic, including (but not limited to):

  • Lacks empathetic connection to the child.

  • Ineffective pursuit of the child. Pushes calls and communications, unannounced appearances at school or activities that the child perceives as embarrassing.

  • Harsh, rigid, and punitive parenting style (uses authoritarian parenting style as the dominant strategy). This is particularly damaging when relating to older children who are striving for independence.

  • Treats the child as much younger than their age, possibly due to not having spent time with the child for a significant period of time.

  • Loses temper, angry, demanding, intimidating character traits, but not to level of abuse.

  • Outrage at challenge to his/her authority.

  • Apportions blame to widespread sources including other parent, child, extended family, professionals and the court.

  • Counter-rejecting behaviour. Passivity or withdrawal in the face of the child’s resistance or rejection of them.42

Whilst this tool is for use by FCAs in their work with families, the above lists are helpful both in asserting and defending claims of parental alienation: using the list as a notional framework that either captures what is happening in a case, or to show that a case departs from the features identified, can be effective and illuminating.

It is noted that although there is some general agreement in respect of behaviours and strategies employed in parental alienation, it does have multiple ‘determinants’, including behaviours and characteristics of the alienating parent, alienated parent and the child. In respect of the child, these are often compounded by the child’s age and developmental stage, as well as their personality traits, and the extent to which the child internalises negative consequences of triangulation. This has led to several measures and tests for parental alienation, and it is acknowledged that more research is needed on the issue.43

The impact of parental alienation

It is widely acknowledged that the harm caused by alienation is immediate, in that it blocks a child’s relationship with one parent, and potentially extended family, and all the positive experiences which may flow from this. It may have enduring effects, leading to a child’s relationships being compromised into adulthood, and mean the complete loss of a relationship with the alienated parent beyond the child’s minority.

However, the harm that can be caused to the child may go beyond this. In the matter of Re A and B (Parental Alienation: No. 1), a decision of Keehan J, the court received expert evidence from Dr Julet Butler (psychiatrist) in respect of the impact of the parental conflict and mother’s intractable position on the two subject children, Child A and Child B, both in the immediate and the long-term.

In respect of Child A, it was noted that she presented with evidence of disordered attachment development and increased risk of mental health problems as a result of being exposed to parental conflict. She presented as pseudo mature, and adult-like in manner due to being placed in situations, and being forced to cope in situations, beyond her emotional age and ability. Dr Butler noted:

In my opinion, Child A is triangulated within the parental conflict. Currently, she has taken up a role whereby she is the one maintaining the conflict with The Father which allows The Mother to stand back and appear to be the reasonable adult who wants to end the conflict. The Mother would state, however, it is impossible for her to do that as the children are refusing to see their dad. Thus, she cannot do anything to effect change. Child A has had to develop a complex attachment strategy in order to survive in this environment. In my opinion, in her relationship with her mother The Mother, she is presenting with a compulsive compliant compulsive [sic] caregiving attachment theory. Children who develop this attachment pattern do so in the face of persistently unavailable care. It also develops from children who have to manage unpredictable but repeated danger. Parental conflict post-separation is one of the most dangerous environments children have to survive. They learn that it is best not to present their needs or to distress adults. At best, it may not elicit any response. At worse, it could provoke attack. Children develop the strategy of being pleasing and helpful as a means of understanding.”44

It was observed that part of this involved Child A portraying her father in a way which did not match the reality of how he presented. In terms of the long-term implications, Dr Butler noted:

Child A is at risk of developing depression and anxiety as an adolescent and an adult. These experiences risk impacting on her capacity to form safe relationships. She is at high risk of developing abusive relationships as an adult and of struggling as a parent herself. Her parents need to effect significant change soon in order to mitigate against the emotional harm that has already been done to Child A and her capacity to manage in relationships.”45

In respect of Child B, it was noted that he presented with a depressive disorder, with a risk that he was suicidal. He missed his father but felt hopeless and helpless. It was also noted that Child B showed signs of disordered attachment development – he evinced a compulsive compliant caregiving attachment strategy, rejecting his father because that was what was required by his sister and mother. Perhaps most shockingly is the following summary by Dr Butler of Child B’s presentation:

In summary, Child B presents as a child who has an insecure attachment relationship with both his parents. He also sees his sister as a parental figure but she also makes him anxious. Therefore, he has no one to whom he can express any feelings of loss for his dad. He sees no possibility for change in his father which is his sister’s position also. He did not think that anything could happen that he could forgive his father but as we spoke about this, he became increasingly dysfluent. By the end, he was just staring at himself in the mirror. I think he had emotionally shut down. I was concerned for his mental health. I was concerned at Child B’s mental health having met with him. I think there is evidence of depressive disorder. This was mainly manifested when he talked about school. He broke down completely and tears were rolling down his face. Child B told me, ‘Everyone thinks I’m disgusting.’ He does not feel he can tell anyone about it. He feels that people are physically moving away from him and they do not want to be close to him. I think there is a risk that he is projecting the loss of his father into school and acting it out there. Sadly, his mother is minimising of this and so he has to deal with the distress himself.”46

The harm being caused to these children in the immediate, and the potential for lasting long-term harm in the future, could not have been made clearer in this case. It serves as a powerful reminder of the implications of ongoing parental conflict and alienation upon children.

The paucity of empirical research into parental alienation however makes establishing both the prevalence and long-term effects of parental alienation difficult.47

The World Health Organisation (‘WHO’)

On 25 May 2019, it appeared that the World Health Organisation (WHO) included ‘parental alienation’ in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as a synonym/index term for “caregiver-child relationship problem” (QE52.0) which was described as a “substantial and sustained dissatisfaction within a caregiver-child relationship associated with significant disturbance in functioning.” The ICD is the diagnostic classification standard for all clinical and research purposes which defines diseases, disorders and other related health conditions. Its purpose is to provide internationally standardised classification for health diagnosis, to count health events and episodes of contact with healthcare for statistical purposes. Whilst not an entirely separate diagnosis, the potential inclusion of parental alienation as an index term for search purposes was an important step in its recognition as a mental health phenomenon, in particular in the wake of the campaign work led by Professor William Bernet, head of the Parental Alienation Study Group.48

However, it was something of a controversial step and attracted much criticism from women’s rights groups in particular49 over its potential misuse to undermine the credibility of one parent alleging abuse as a reason for refusing contact. WHO subsequently clarified that the inclusion of the term for search purposes did not signify endorsement of the term or its use. After reconsidering its position, WHO also concluded that, as a result of it being an issue relevant to specific judicial contexts, its inclusion in the ICD-11 not contributing to health statistics, and there being no evidence-based health care interventions specifically for parental alienation, that in situations where an individual labelled with this term presents for health care, other ICD-11 content is sufficient to guide coding. As a result ‘parental alienation’ and its parallel index term ‘parental estrangement’ were removed from the ICD-11.50

WHO have also noted that it had decided not to include the concept and terminology of parental alienation in the classification itself, because it did not regard it as a health care term, noting that “the term is rather used in legal contexts, generally in the context of custody disputes in divorce or other partnership dissolution.”51

Different perspectives on parental alienation: does it really exist?

There is no doubt that some children inadvertently become, or are deliberately made to become, aligned to one parent at the expense of their relationship with the other. That is a well-known and accepted phenomenon. What frequently offends some psychiatrists and psychologists is the characterisation of this process or state as a syndrome. There is no such classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, since it is currently in its 5th revision), that lists mental health conditions recognised by the American Psychiatric Association, and WHO’s position on its inclusion in the ICD-11 is outlined above. While there are a number of practitioners in the field of psychiatry and psychology who consider this to be a significant omission,52 there are others who argue that there is insufficient research to validate its existence.

Furthermore, there is an argument which is gaining increasing attention: that allegations of parental alienation are being made in the context of cases which involve domestic abuse to challenge the legitimate objections of the abused parent to contact. In her 2020 article53 Dr Adrienne Barnett concludes that:

PA [parental alienation] is a concept that is proving more powerful than any other in silencing the voices of women and children resisting contact with abusive men. PA is not an ‘equal’ counterpart to domestic abuse, it is a means of obscuring domestic abuse, and should be recognised as such. We need to find ‘other’ ways of talking about children’s welfare that recognise children’s interlinked vulnerability, agency and relationships before any further harm is done to them.”

This issue will be discussed in detail in Chapter 3: Parental alienation and domestic abuse.

These are important considerations, but almost all commentators recognise that to undermine the relationship between a parent and a child without legitimate cause is a harmful and abusive act. The court must be alert to parents who engage in actions which cause that harm and proactively case manage those cases to avoid perpetuating or compounding the damage caused.

As noted by Parker J, first instance judge in the decision of in Re H (Children)54:

“I regard parental manipulation of children, of which I distressingly see an enormous amount, as exceptionally harmful. It distorts the relationship of the child not only with the parent but with the outside world. Children who are suborned into flouting court orders are given extremely damaging messages about the extent to which authority can be disregarded and given the impression that compliance with adult expectations is optional. Bearing in mind the documented history of this mother’s inability to control these children, their relationship with one another and wholly inappropriate empowerment, it strikes me as highly damaging in this case. I am disappointed that the professionals in this case are unable truly to understand this message. […] Parents who obstruct a relationship with the other parent are inflicting untold damage on their children and it is, in my view, about time that professionals truly understood this.”55

MORE INFORMATION / PURCHASE THE BOOK ONLINE

1[2015] EWCA Civ 389

2ibid., para. 72

3[2012] EWCA Civ 999

4ibid., para. 75

5ibid., para. 78

6Re H-B (Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 389, para. 74

7ibid., para. 75

8See Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999; Re J-M (Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 434; Re Q (Implacable Contact Dispute) [2015] EWCA Civ 991; and Re A (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 910.

9[1994] 1 FLR 729

10ibid., at 736

11[2000] EWCA Civ 194; [2002] 2 FLR 334

12Drs Sturges and Glaser, ‘Contact and domestic violence: the experts court report’, [2000] Fam Law 615

13Richard A. Gardner, M.D., ‘The Parental Alienation Syndrome: Past, Present and Future’, based on the address presented to the International Conference of the Parental Alienation Syndrome held in Frankfurt/ Main, Germany, 18-19 October 2002 (http://richardagardner.com/ar22)

14Re L, Re V, Re M and Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] EWCA Civ 194; [2002] 2 FLR 334 at 351

15Sir Andrew McFarlane, NAGALRO Annual Conference – Keynote Address, ‘Contact: A Point of View’, 19 March 2018 (https://law.bloomsburyprofessional.com/blog/nagalro-conference-2018-keynote-address)

16Lord Justice McFarlane, ‘Families Need Fathers Conference 2018 – Keynote Address by Lord Justice McFarlane’, 25 June 2018 (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/speech-lj-mcfarlane-fnf.pdf)

17[2018] EWFC B64

18ibid., para. 167

19[2020] EWCA Civ 568

20ibid., para. 8

21[2010] EWHC B19 (Fam)

22ibid., paras. 43-44 & 46

23Community Care, ‘Parental alienation: what is it and how it’s different from implacable hostility’, 5 September 2018 (https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2018/09/05/parental-alienation-different-implacable-hostility/)

24[2016] EWCA Civ 1088

25ibid., para. 10

26[2019] EWHC 3854 (Fam)

27[2019] EWHC 2723 (Fam)

28[2019] EWFC B56

29[2020] EHWC 3366; [2021] EWHC 2601 (Fam); [2021] EWHC 2602 (Fam); [2021] EWHC 2603 (Fam)

30Re A and B (Parental Alienation: No.3) [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam), para. 23

31Lucy Reed, ‘Parental Alienation – what can we tell from published judgments’, The Transparency Project, 17 October 2021 (https://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/parental-alienation-what-can-we-tell-from-published-judgments/)

32Doughty, J., Maxwell, N., and Slater, T., ‘Review of Research and Case Law on Parental Alienation’, Cascade Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre commissioned by Cafcass Cymru, April 2018 (https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-05/review-of-research-and-case-law-on-parental-alienation.pdf), page 27, based on A.J.L. Baker and D.C. Darnall, ‘A Construct Study of the Eight Symptoms of Severe Parental Alienation Syndrome’, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage (2007), 47(1-2), 55-75

33Cafcass, ‘Cafcass reissues position on parental alienation’, 14 January 2021 (https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/2021/01/14/cafcass-reissues-position-on-parental-alienation/)

34Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568, para. 8

35[2011] EWHC 3521 (Fam)

36ibid., para. 31

38ibid.

40See for example Re Y (A Child: Private Law: Fact Finding) [2014] EWHC 486 (Fam)

41See for example Re A (Suspended Residence Order) [2009] EWHC 1576 (Fam)

42For a decision in which the court refused to make a finding of parental alienation against the mother, and instead concluded that the father’s own inability to accept the child had a voice of his own and lack of insight into the child’s needs had caused the child emotional harm, see Re A (A Child) [2021] 9 WLUK 485.

43See Doughty, J., Maxwell, N., and Slater, T., ‘Review of Research and Case Law on Parental Alienation’, Cascade Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre commissioned by Cafcass Cymru, April 2018 (https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-05/review-of-research-and-case-law-on-parental-alienation.pdf), para 4.3 at page 19 onwards for an extensive overview of the research into the determinants of parental alienation, and para. 4.7 at page 27.

44Re A and B (Parental Alienation: No.1) [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam)., para. 14

45ibid., para. 16

46ibid., para. 18

47The issue of the impact of alienation is largely outside the scope of this book, however readers are encouraged to consider Doughty, J., Maxwell, N., and Slater, T., ‘Review of Research and Case Law on Parental Alienation’, Cascade Children’s Social Care Research and Development Centre commissioned by Cafcass Cymru, April 2018 (https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2018-05/review-of-research-and-case-law-on-parental-alienation.pdf), para. 4.4 at page 21 onwards, for an extensive overview of the research into this issue.

48Karen Woodall, ‘World Health Organisation Recognises Parental Alienation’, 27 May 2019, (https://karenwoodall.blog/2019/05/27/world-health-organisation-recognises-parental-alienation/)

49The Collective Memo of Concern to the World Health Organisation dated 10 July 2019 was signed by 352 family law academics, family violence experts, family violence research institutes, child development and child abuse experts, children’s rights networks and associations, as well as 764 concerned individuals (https://www.learningtoendabuse.ca/docs/WHO-September-24-2019.pdf).

51ibid.

52William Bernet, M.D., Parental Alienation, DSM-V and ICD-11, American Series in Behavioural Science and Law. Charles C. Thomas Publisher, Ltd, Springfield, IL, 2010

53Adrienne Barnett, ‘A genealogy of hostility: parental alienation in England and Wales’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, (2020) 42:1, 18-29

54[2014] EWCA Civ 733

55ibid., para. 44