Parental Alienation: Specialist Legal Advice and Support

The term ‘parental alienation’ refers to situations where a child unjustifiably resists or refuses to have a relationship with one parent, often as a result of manipulation by the other. However, the courts and the FJC Guidance are clear that ‘parental alienation syndrome’ has no evidential basis and is considered harmful pseudo-science. The court’s focus is on the specific behaviour in the family and its impact, not simply the label. 

‘Alienating behaviours’ are defined as psychologically manipulative behaviours (intended or otherwise) by a parent towards a child, resulting in the child’s reluctance, resistance, or refusal to spend time with the other parent.

According to the FJC Guidance and repeated in recent case law, the court must be satisfied that three elements are present before concluding alienating behaviours have occurred:

(i) The child is reluctant, resisting, or refusing to engage with a parent or carer;

(ii) This reluctance is not justified by the actions of that parent or other factors such as alignment, affinity, or attachment; and

(iii) The other parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted the child, leading to their reluctance or refusal. 

No. The courts have repeatedly confirmed that parental alienation is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, and experts should not provide a diagnosis. It is a factual matter for the court to determine based on the specific behaviours and their impact.

The court is responsible for deciding whether alienating behaviours have occurred. While experts may provide evidence about behaviour or impact, findings of alienation are factual matters for the judge, not diagnoses for experts.

Examples include portraying the other parent in an unduly negative light, suggesting the other parent does not love the child, excessive contact with the child during their time with the other parent, making unfounded allegations (particularly of abuse), forbidding discussion about the other parent, or creating the impression that the other parent is dangerous or unworthy.

No. The child’s reluctance or resistance to spending time with a parent does not automatically mean alienating behaviours have occurred. The court requires evidence of acts by a parent resulting in unjustified rejection, and must consider all risk factors, including domestic abuse and alignment or attachment issues.

Where domestic abuse is alleged alongside alienating behaviours, the court must first determine the domestic abuse issues, and then consider whether the child’s reluctance is an ‘appropriate justified reaction rejection’ or the result of protective behaviour or trauma. Allegations of alienation are not considered in isolation.

Yes. Alienating behaviours can have significant and enduring effects, akin to emotional or psychological abuse. They can impact a child’s emotional, social, and psychological development, identity, and sense of safety.

No. The process and impact are what matter, not whether the behaviour was deliberate or malicious. Manipulation need not be intentional.

Yes. Both men and women can demonstrate alienating behaviours, and sometimes both parents play a role in the child’s rejection of one parent.

If alienating behaviours are proven and are causing significant harm, the court may take protective action, which could include varying child arrangements, making care orders, or taking steps to restore relationships, always considering the child’s welfare as paramount.