Demystifying accusations of parental alienation

Parental alienation is a term that we often see used in children proceedings that have a high level of conflict between parents. Despite the prevalence of alienating behaviours leading to alienation being relatively rare, allegations of parental alienation are increasing. It is a serious phenomenon, so accusations must never be taken lightly, nor should they be made without confidence that the behaviours displayed by the child and parent are capable of establishing that alienating behaviours have occurred. The importance of doing this is clear; the concept of parental alienation is a highly complex one, and a child’s reluctance or resistance to spend time with a parent may not necessarily be due to parental alienation.

The concept in itself is controversial, with terms such as ‘parental alienation syndrome’ being used to ‘diagnose’ a child’s behaviour despite lacking evidential basis. Making an accusation within litigation will almost certainly raise tensions further, and risks embroiling the parties in longer, more costly litigation whilst decentralising the key consideration of the child’s welfare.

It is for these reasons that Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division and Chair of the Family Justice Council, approved guidance by the Family Justice Council (FJC) on Parental Alienation. The aim of the guidance is to assist the court in determining the welfare of the child in situations where allegations of parental alienation or alienating behaviours have been made. As making these allegations can prove somewhat explosive, it can lead to the focus shifting from the voice of the child to parental behaviours, which is unhelpful when the court’s priority must be the child’s welfare.

It is important to note that the authors of the report stress that the concept of ‘parental alienation syndrome’ has little research evidence in support, and that the use of terms such as ‘parental alienation’ and ‘alienating behaviours’ unhelpfully lend legitimacy to this concept. In an effort to ensure that they do not add further legitimacy to the concept of ‘parental alienation’, the FJC has instead referred to a child’s unexplained ‘reluctance, resistance and refusal’ to spend time with a parent (RRR). Where this RRR has been caused by psychological manipulation by a parent, this is referred to as the parent showing ‘alienating behaviours’.

The Guidance focuses on five main areas:

1. Case management where allegations of alienating behaviours have been made;
2. The importance of ensuring the voice of the child is heard;
3. Welfare decisions where alienating behaviour has been found;
4. Understanding RRR and psychological manipulation; and
5. The use of experts.

Although the Guidance provides useful detail on case management and assistance to the court when making welfare decisions where allegations of alienating behaviour have been made, this article focuses on the key points of establishing parental alienation, obtaining the wishes and feelings of the child and the use of experts, whilst ensuring that the welfare of the child is centred.

Identifying if parental alienation is present

In Re C (‘Parental Alienation; Instruction of an Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), Sir Andrew McFarlane set out that parental alienation is not a syndrome capable of diagnosis, rather it is a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through what are termed ‘alienating behaviours’. In order to determine if these alienating behaviours have occurred, a court would need to satisfy itself that the following three elements are present:

1. The child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent (the ‘alienated parent’); and
2. The reluctance, resistance or refusal is not due to the actions of the alienated parent towards that child or the other parent (the ‘alienating parent’), actions which could lead to an appropriate justified rejection by the child and is not caused by any other factor such as the child’s alignment, affinity or attachment; and
3. The alienating parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to engage in a relationship with the alienated parent.

It must also be remembered that accusations of parental alienation can be made as a response to allegations of domestic and/or child abuse. The perpetrator of the abuse can allege parental alienation as a litigation tactic for minimising the impact of their own abuse towards the child or former partner. In these circumstances, the child’s reluctance to engage with the parent claiming parental alienation has occurred would be justified. Domestic abuse and parental alienation are completely different manifestations and cannot be automatically considered ‘equal’ in their impact upon the victim. Given that domestic abuse occurs more frequently than parental alienation, it is important to ensure that allegations of parental alienation are not allowed to silence or exert further control over those parents and children who have suffered from abuse.

A child may also show RRR as a response to an attachment, affinity or alignment with one parent, which could in itself be caused by a variety of reasons, for example neglectful parenting by the parent experiencing the ‘rejection’. This does not, however, mean that alienating behaviours have taken place, and may be an example of an appropriate justified rejection towards the neglectful parent by the child. Further, where there has been domestic or child abuse (including litigation abuse), the parent accused of alienating behaviour may actually be attempting to shield the child from further harm by displaying protective behaviours or could be showing a traumatic response. It is therefore important to be mindful that the presence of RRR could be caused by a myriad of reasons and does not necessarily mean that alienating behaviours have taken place.

Further, where a child has experienced the separation of their parents, they may demonstrate RRR as a response, sometimes directing resentment towards the parent they blame for the separation. This behaviour may alter over time as the child processes their emotions and cannot be taken as evidence of psychological manipulation by one parent. Nor is it a forgone conclusion that in the absence of a justifiable reason for a child’s RRR, psychological manipulation must have taken place. Both evidence of psychological manipulation and the absence of a justifiable reason for a child’s rejection of a parent need to be present before it could be established that alienation has taken place.

Psychological manipulation in itself can take many forms, and it is well established in law that some parents manipulate their children, even to the point of the child making false allegations within proceedings (Parker J in Re H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733). Examples of psychological manipulation can include one parent displaying behaviour that essentially ‘rewards’ a child for rejecting the other parent, and ‘punishes’ them for not rejecting the other parent. This may involve encouraging the child to ‘protect’ the wellbeing of the parent from the imagined harmful behaviour of the alienated parent.

Hearing the child

A focus on ascertaining if alienating behaviours have occurred can, paradoxically, lead to the child’s wishes and feelings as obtained by an expert being inadvertently manipulated. When an allegation of alienating behaviour is made, it can lead to the child feeling that professionals are being dismissive of that child’s views and experiences. This stems from the professional seeking to ascertain if the child’s views are really their own, and attempting to uncover their ‘true’ wishes. This can damage the child’s trust in the professional, or cause frustration in the face of repeated questioning. This, in isolation, cannot confirm that alienating behaviour has taken place.

Where it is found that alienating behaviour has taken place, the process of informing the child of the outcome of proceedings needs to be handled sensitively, especially if the child is likely to be unhappy with the outcome. It should be borne in mind that the child may interpret any order that increases their time with the alienated parent as evidence of them not being believed, or their feelings being ignored. It is important to ensure that the child receives appropriate support and assistance in understanding why their living arrangements are changing, and why the decisions that led to these changes were made.

Use of experts

Once the presence of alienating behaviours has been established, an expert psychologist may be necessary to assist the court in determining the welfare outcome for the child. When instructing an expert, it is important to avoid inadvertently biasing the expert by couching instructions entirely in terms of ascertaining welfare decisions where alienating behaviour has been found. Instead, the instructions should be for a holistic psychological assessment with a broader focus on the child’s cognitive, educational, emotional, social, and behavioural development. When assessing the adult, the report should address (amongst other points) the parent’s ability to prioritise the child’s needs over their own.

‍

With a concept as challenging as parental alienation, it is clear why this Guidance was required. Parental alienation is a phenomenon that is not simply defined, often alleged in proceedings, and easy to fabricate inadvertently by not taking the proper care in determining what has occurred within a parent/child relationship. The added risk of an allegation of alienating behaviour masking the presence of domestic/child abuse means this is an area that must be treated with the utmost care to ensure the child’s welfare is protected.

‍

Jessica's article was published in Family Law Week, 20 January 2025, and can be found here.