Recent guidance from the Family Justice Council clarifies the correct approach to dealing with Parental Alienation allegations

Alienating behaviour is defined by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) as “An ongoing pattern of negative attitudes and communication about the other parent that has the potential or intention to undermine or even destroy the child’s relationship with their other parent… it includes conveying false beliefs or stories, and withholding positive information from the child about the other parent, with the relative absence of observable positive attitudes and behaviours… these tactics can foster a false belief that the other parent is dangerous or unworthy”.

The family court has long grappled with how to effectively deal with alienating behaviours. The court does not know what is going on behind the closed doors of every household. It is not always easy to establish that alienating behaviours are taking place. Quite often, by the time alienating behaviours are identified, the damage is already done.

When the family court makes decisions about a child, its priority is always the child’s best interests. If a child has been manipulated to the extent that they have developed a genuine hostility to one parent (despite there being no real basis for that), the court will often struggle with how to address that relationship going forward. Is it in the child’s best interests to be ordered to live with, or have regular contact with, a parent whom they have developed a strong resistance to (irrespective of whether that resistance is truly justified)?

There have been countless reported cases which deal with parental alienation, which demonstrate the difficult and insidious nature of this issue:

1. The case of Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam) concerned an 8-year-old boy who was the subject of protracted court proceedings. When in the presence of the mother, the child was observed to describe his father “entirely negatively”. That was at odds with the child’s actual contact with the father, where a “highly positive, close and fun” relationship was observed. It was established that the child’s mother and maternal grandmother were hostile towards the father, and that the child was being manipulated and emotionally abused. The court ordered the child to live with the father, against the advice of the child’s guardian (who felt that such a significant change in the child’s circumstances would cause him too much disruption and confusion).
2. The case of Re H (Parental Alienation) PA [2019] EWHC 2723 (Fam) concerned a 12-year-old boy, who had been alienated from his father. A psychologist filed a report in the proceedings which confirmed that the child “prioritised his mother’s needs over his own, and no longer sees his relationship with his father as bringing anything but pain and complication into his life”. The court made an order for the child to live with the father, despite no contact having taken place for 12 months at the time of the hearing. 
3. The case of Re T (A Child) (S9(6) Children Act 1989 Orders) [2024] EWHC 59 involved a child aged 15, who had been the subject of court proceedings for more than a decade. There had been over 70 hearings, and 26 judges involved in the case. The judge noted that the mother “had spent at least 10 years convincing the child that she was a victim of abuse and that the father is a violent abusive man… this is untrue… the mother is bitter about the father and has had and is having her revenge against him… she is determined to ensure that he does not have a relationship with their children”. The child said he did not want to spend time with the father. Despite making serious criticisms of the mother, the court did not grant the father’s request for a contact order extending beyond the child’s 16th birthday.
4. The case of Re A (Children) (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWFC B56 was a tragic example of what can happen when alienating behaviours are unresolved. The judge noted it is “one of the most disconcerting situations I have encountered… a case in which a father leaves the proceedings with no contact with his children despite years of litigation, extensive professional input, the initiation of public law proceedings and many court orders”. The court had made an order for the children to live with the father, but they responded by refusing to eat, running away from home and exhibiting severe distress. The transfer of residence failed, and the children were returned to the mother.

The court’s approach to parental alienation allegations has evolved. In 2019, CAFCASS developed new guidance for its practitioners to identify alienating behaviours, ultimately with a view to taking a more proactive approach to managing these issues at the outset of cases. However, in recent years, the court has found itself inundated with cases in which alienation allegations are made. 

Genuine parental alienation is, thankfully, not a common occurrence. The court has acknowledged that these allegations are often being improperly used as a way of defending or deflecting domestic abuse allegations. 

In December 2024, the Family Justice Council released Guidance “…on responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour”.

Some of the key points to take-away from the guidance are as follows: 

• A child’s reluctance to spend time with a parent is often alleged to be “parental alienation”. Concepts of “parental alienation syndrome” and “parental alienation” are increasingly exploited in family litigation.
• Parental alienation is not a syndrome which is capable of being diagnosed. It is a process of manipulation of a child, perpetrated by one parent against the other, through a series of “alienating behaviours”. It is the court’s role to make findings about whether such behaviours are taking place, and what impact (if any) those behaviours have had on any relevant child.
• There are 3 criteria for alienating behaviours– a child is reluctant or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent; that reluctance is not a consequence of the actions of that parent towards the child or the other parent; and the other parent has engaged in behaviours which have directly or indirectly influenced the child, resulting in the reluctance.
• A child may withdraw from a relationship with a parent for a variety of reasons. These can include harmful parenting, alignment or affinity with one parent, attachment strategy, attachment issues or simply preference. In response to parental separation, children may experience a wide range of emotions and react with initial anger or resentment, and that may be directed at the parent they perceive to be at fault. That behaviour may alter over time as the child processes the separation. Sometimes there is no clear reason why a child is reluctant to spend time with a parent.
• Children who show reluctance to have a relationship with a parent who has been abusive towards them, or their other parent may be exhibiting a justifiable response (in which case, allegations of alienating behaviour will fail).
• Where alienating behaviour is alleged, the court will need to consider the nature, seriousness and complexity of the issues and make appropriate case management directions.
• Allegations of alienating behaviours may arise at any point in the court process. However, the court should try to avoid allegations being made for the first time at a late stage in proceedings.
• Where allegations are made, the court will need to consider what role Cafcass can play, and whether a Finding of Fact hearing is necessary and appropriate.
• The party who is making allegations of alienating behaviours is responsible for identifying the evidence that they seek to rely on. They must discharge the burden of establishing that the behaviour has occurred, and that it has led to the child’s resistance to spending time with them.

For many, this guidance provides much needed clarity in this highly sensitive area. It should result in the court’s taking a more unified approach to dealing with alienation allegations. It should also reduce the number of cases in which alienation allegations are brandished as a defence to legitimate concerns being raised about domestic abuse or other safeguarding issues. It is clearly not acceptable for a victim of abuse to find themselves in a situation where, after raising valid concerns in Children Act proceedings, they are placed in the spotlight and forced to strenuously defend their own behaviour and actions. 

This guidance may, however, cause concern to parents who genuinely fear that they are being alienated from their child(ren). The above cases demonstrate that it has never been easy for the court to deal with parental alienation. This guidance places full responsibility on parents who have concerns about alienation, to prove both the existence of such behaviour and the impact it is having on their child. It is not easy to obtain evidence of manipulation which is taking place behind closed doors.