Parental alienation was considered in the recent case Mother v Father.
The parents separated in mid-2022. The parents had two children (referred to as T and G). The mother took G with her when she left the family home. The mother made an application to court in 2022 but the parents agreed a 50/50 shared care arrangement at the first hearing in January 2023 so the proceedings did not go any further.
T stopped seeing the mother in July 2023 (with the father saying that T no longer wanted to see her). The mother applied to enforce the order made in January 2023 and then for a child arrangements order that both children live with her. By the time of the first hearing, G was also refusing to see the father and was living with the mother.
T continued to express to professionals that they did not want to see the mother throughout the court proceedings. By June 2024 G wanted to have a relationship with the father on the condition that there would be no overnights and the father would not say mean things.
An interim order was made in July 2024 that T live with the father and G live with the mother. An order was made for G to spend time with the father (as agreed between the parents). G spent time with the father on around 6 occasions but then refused to go to see the father after a holiday with the mother’s family.
Both parents made allegations of parental alienation.
At the time of the final hearing, T was 14 and G was 12.
At the final hearing, the Judge considered the elements that must be evidenced to establish alienating behaviours as set out in Re C (Parental Alienation) [2023] EWHC 345:
- the child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in, a relationship with a parent or carer (RRR);
- the RRR is not consequent on the actions of that parent towards the child or the other parent, which may therefore be an appropriate justified rejection by the child (AJR), or is not caused by any other factor such as the child’s alignment, affinity or attachment (AAA); and
- the other parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child’s RRR to engage in a relationship with that parent. It is not important to decide whether the alienation is deliberate or not. It is the process that matters, not the motive: Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568.
The Judge also considered that applications for a child arrangements order under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 require the court to apply the principles set out in section 1 and section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 which provide that:
“…unless the contrary is shown, involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.”
The Judge also considered the parental behaviours highlighted in the Cafcass toolkit and FJC guidance in identifying alienating behaviours:
“repeatedly or constantly criticising or belittling the other parent; forbidding discussion about the other parent; creating the impression that the other parent dislikes or does not love the child; denying emotional responsiveness to the other parent or spurning, terrorising, isolating, corrupting, or exploiting them.”
The Judge found that T was reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in a relationship with the mother and that G was reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in a relationship with the father (RRR). This was evident from behaviours including refusing to speak to or see the other parent, angry or challenging reactions to the other parent, and making negative comments about the other parent.
The Judge identified unhelpful behaviour by both parents including the mother remaining in view when G had contact with the father and the father not correcting T’s rudeness to the mother (amongst other behaviours). However, the Judge was satisfied that it was more likely than not that both children’s alignment, affinity and attachment was at the root of both children’s RRR and that no alienating behaviours beyond the parents’ unhelpful and counter-productive actions led to either child’s rejection of their mother or father. The Judge when considering alignment, affinity and attachment referred to a report prepared during the proceedings which concluded that the children’s own personalities affect the parent to whom they align.
The final order was that T live with the father and G live with the mother. No contact between T and the mother was ordered but there was a recital that this contact would be encouraged in accordance with T’s wishes and feelings. Stepped contact between G and the father was agreed between the parents following the Judge inviting them to do so.
In making the above final order, the Judge secured the status quo (what had been happening). This case illustrates the importance of seeking legal advice early if your child is refusing to see you or the other parent is not letting you see your child.
At Stephens Scown we have experienced, specialist lawyers who can assist in cases where there has been parental alienation. Please contact us on 0345 450 5558 or enquiries@stephens-scown.co.uk