Parental alienation.
This week MPs called for an Inquiry into the Family Courts with regard to the treatment of victims of domestic abuse and their children. Watch the full commentary here (c10 Minutes):
Open Letter to CAFCASS and NSPCC re Families Need Fathers
OPEN LETTER to CAFCASS and NSPCC re your PARTICIPATION in a conference run by FAMILIES NEED FATHERS (FNF)
on Saturday 14 October
We understand that you are speaking at this FNF conference on parental alienation. You must be aware that FNF have consistently attacked women.
Must we refresh your memory? As long ago as 1994, during a debate on the Child Support Agency, MP Glenda Jackson reported in Parliament that FNF advised fathers who were not allowed access to their children to ‘kidnap them. If that failed and nothing else could succeed, it advocated the murder of the mother.’ Recently we helped a father re-introduce contact with his child. He had previously gone to FNF and was horrified when their facilitators described the whole system as stacked against men, and kept referring to ‘feminist Nazis’. He said they promote and perpetuate misogyny and refused to go back.
FNF deny domestic violence, dismissing it as false allegations. They claim that ‘False and unfounded allegations poison proceedings when a non-resident parent is seeking parenting time with his children. Judges need to make findings of fact as soon as possible and to take false allegations into account when determining the best interests of the child.’ FNF claim that ‘there is widespread abuse of men and boys in the context of the family courts’ and accuse women of ‘making allegations’ as ‘a motorway to obtaining legal aid’.
Such claims are totally outrageous. Surely you know that:
• One in five women aged 16-59 have suffered sexual violence in England and Wales;[1] two women a week are murdered by a partner or ex-partner; one in four women have been subjected to domestic violence in their lifetime; 81% of victims of domestic violence are women; domestic violence has a higher rate of repeat victimisation than any other crime; 62% of children in households where domestic violence is happening are also directly harmed;[2] 50% of rapes are domestic. The level of false allegations of rape is less than 1% and less than 0.5% for domestic violence, both are much lower than false allegations for other crimes.[3]
• Family courts have allowed violent fathers (even when they have a criminal record for violence) to terrify, threaten and intimidate those they had victimised and who managed to escape them. These legal standards would never be tolerated in an open court. Judges have insisted on contact and even residence, dismissing what women and children were telling them. Nineteen children and two mothers were killed between 2005 and 2015 following court orders to allow fathers unsupervised contact. (WA)
• FNF have the view that fathers who are estranged from their children have the same rights as mothers who do the daily work of caring and protecting them. That is the traditional patriarchal view by which children and their mothers are men’s property for them to do what they want with. No organisation or charity which gets public funds, especially ones that claim to speak for children, should give credence to such views.
We hope you will reconsider your participation in this conference.
Legal Action for Women and Women Against Rape
law@allwomencount.net war@womenagainstrape.net
________________________________________
Since placing this on the website I have been informed that the people who arranged this protest were not FNF but a parental alienation support group.
The letter above is in fact factually incorrect.
I hope this can be sorted out between legal action for women and the PAS support group as soon as possible.
[1] An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, Ministry of Justice, Office for National Statistics and Home Office, 2013
[2] http://www.refuge.org.uk/get-help-now/what-is-domestic-violence/domestic... quoting various ONS and Home Office sources
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/13/rape-investigations-beli...
Parental Visitation Rights and Tragic Outcomes.
The outcry over a decision that let a child have a weekend visit with her father, an action that led to the child’s death, includes cries for the judge’s removal and a call from the Governor for an inquiry by the Judicial Conduct Board. As we show below, this response misses the boat in two regards – the protection of judicial independence and the need to change the law. Professor Jules Epstein addresses the former; Professor Sarah Katz the latter.
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
We live in a world where the judiciary is under attack, with cries that “our legal system is broken” and that judicial decisions put our country “in peril.” But we want and need judges to make tough decisions without looking over their shoulders. And we want lawyers to be able to go into court on new cases without fearing that the judge will make a harsh decision to ‘look tough’ and appease the critics.
Judicial misconduct warrants sanctions. Lying, stealing, doing favors; not showing up for work; or being racist, sexist or otherwise hostile to discrete populations – all warrant punishment and some may require removal. But an unwise decision – if this indeed was one – is not misconduct.
Can we know that the judge’s decision was wrong, except using hindsight? The father had abusive acts toward adults in his past, and suffered from depression. There are data supporting the assertion that these behaviors indicate that children are at risk, but that is but one of numerous factors the law requires a judge to weigh. Is a judge wrong if the risk is 1% versus 15%, or if the father has been with this child without violence, or if the spousal abuse occurred years earlier? Unless the science is clear, the numbers are compelling, and the law makes this the main factor, the judge’s decision is not misconduct.
What is needed here? From the worlds of airplane accidents and medical errors, we need what are termed “just culture” reviews and “root cause analysis.” In plain English, that means studying whether and why the judge’s decision was clearly wrong and unjustified, assessing what information should have been considered and how it should have been weighed, and learning how to ensure that the risk of such harm is reduced if not eliminated in future cases. That may mean more judicial education, more resources, or a recalibration of the law.
Protect our children; but not in a way that fails to protect the institution of an independent judiciary.
THE NEED FOR LEGISLATIVE REFORM
The tragic and horrific murder in Philadelphia of seven year old Kayden Mancuso by her father Jeffrey Mancuso underscores the need for legislative change. Although Kayden’s mother Kathryn Sherlock tried to warn a Family Court judge that her daughter was in danger with her father, the law was not on her side.
Under the Pennsylvania custody statute, judges must consider sixteen factors when rendering custody determinations which are in the best interest of a child. Whether there is a history of intimate partner violence, which was reportedly an issue in this case, is just one of the sixteen custody factors. Other factors include the parties’ caregiving history, whether there is a history of substance abuse or mental health issues, and the preference of the child. Jeffrey Mancuso had at least one criminal conviction for aggravated assault which, under the statute, creates a rebuttable presumption of threat of harm – but the conviction, reportedly for biting someone’s ear – did not involve an incident between the parties. But the presumption of threat of harm does not attach unless a party has a criminal conviction for a list of crimes which are enumerated in the statute. There are a multitude of reasons why people who abuse their intimate partners are not always convicted of abuse – for example, they may never be charged if the survivor is too afraid to report to police, and even if charged they will not be convicted if the survivor is too afraid to follow through with the prosecution.
Social science research tells us that intimate partner violence is a strong predictor of risk of harm to children. Not only are children harmed by exposure to a parent inflicting violence against another parent, but adults who abuse their intimate partners are far more likely to harm children. Despite this body of knowledge, custody law in Pennsylvania has not caught up. Although evidence of intimate partner violence must be considered in rendering any custody decision, the law does not attach any rebuttable presumption of threat of harm to children to such evidence. Rather than attach the presumption to a list of criminal convictions (only some of which have any connection to risk of harm to children), the statute should guide judges to give far more weight to any evidence of intimate partner violence.
The benefit of hindsight makes it tempting to criticize the custody Judge in the Kayden Mancuso case, but this misses the point: the problem is the law which the Judge is constrained to apply. Every day judges in family courts throughout the Commonwealth and the country hear highly contested custody cases where allegations of intimate partner violence are present. Every day judges must weigh the fundamental rights of parents to care and custody of their children, against evidence of any risk to those children which might necessitate placing limits or conditions on a parent’s custody. These are not easy cases and no judge has a crystal ball which will predict the future. But attaching a presumption of threat of harm to evidence of intimate partner violence will go a long way to protecting children.
Click on the photo to find out more about Dr Ludwig Lowenstein the pusher of Parental alienation as a syndrome into the family court,
Parental Alination as a syndrome.
There is no recognised ‘syndrome’ of parental alienation. One parent may have valid safety and welfare concerns about a child having contact with an abusive parent and expressing these concerns should not be dismissed as an abusive act in itself. The development of this theory in the US is highly disputed and it has not been officially recognised by the World Health Organisation. Making it known as a syndrome has been the life work of a Dr Ludwig Lowenstein of whome I have put a post above discussing his promotion of a Dr Graham Gardener a known doctor who believed pedophilia to be normal. Both making PA a syndrome and PA itself where it is used to stop one parent having contact with the other out of spite are both wrongful dangerous and misleading.
Parental alienation the double-edged sword.
Parental alienation is a double-edged sword on one side there is the true alienating parent who is deliberately using the children to hurt the other parent or grandparent and this can cause sheer and utter devastation for the innocent alienated parent. But then there is the parent who is protecting the children from abuse or even potential abuse knowing this other parents character.
This can either be an intentional and wicked act, other times it can be unintentional.
However there are many cases where a couple cannot get along, who live together and their arguments have become bitter and resentful, even abusive, Yet both parents are loved and adored by their own family members and a group of friends. In these cases both parents are pointing at each other, calling out abuse, arguing in front of the children. The mother calling dad a “control freak,” citing coercive control. the father calling her mental and “needing help.” Both believing themselves to be in the right whilst believing that the children are best with them the “innocent one, the victim.” All they are doing in these situations is damaging the children in the middle. In this case, the children are best having to separate healthy parents living their individual separate lives happily. But how do you stop the bitterness of the past becoming so determined to ruin the others happiness and time with the children? Children deserve to know both parents equally and this is the position of the family courts when they hear of the arguments that go on between warring ex-partners. They try to ignore, "he did this she did that" battle's and work out how to best protect the children, Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes the children end up in the hands of the abuser because the accuser holds the most anger and this cannot be an ideal scenario for any child, but it often is the case.
A protective parent one who knows the abuse has spilled over onto the children by the other parent. The one they call “the abusive parent” sounds the same as the former in a court of law and the innocent parent, because of their absolute need to tell everyone about how they are understandably concerned for their children's welfare because of the things this other parent has done during their relationship, whilst reeling off a list of terrible wrongdoings. The innocent parent can end up losing his/her children to the true abusive parent and have the whole thing turned around onto them using parental alienation in the family courts. This is why when offering advice we ask that the victim must calm their need to be heard so much they become a wreck repeating the same issues over and over again to make sure the judge CAFCASS and all and sundry know that they were the victim and this other person the perpetrator. You will lose your children this way. If you have proof and evidence calmly offer it to the judge and to CAFCASS and wait for them to make their decisions. It may not be the decision that you want but the more you rant the worse your case will get for you.
I have been the victim of being accused of parental alienation so please take it from someone who knows. I know many women who have been destroyed in court by their abusive ex’s being adept at manipulation, convincing cafcass, as they become the accused, accused of alienating when they absolutely were not! This can be just another tool for abusers and the state to use against victims of abuse, violence and rape, by the perpetrator who would harm children just to see their only protective parent in prison. I am writing this to stop you from becoming the victim of the same.
I have deliberately placed women and mother’s point of view on Parental alienation on the left here, and men and fathers point of view of this to the right. Sometimes you have to step right back from the whole picture to determine in which scenario child would be best off. Often the family courts feel a calmness with the perpetrator and anxiousness in the victim of abuse and they determine the children would be best off in the calm environment of the one being accused than the one who appears to have a calmer attitude.
The biggest problem with being accused of parental alienation is that the abuser is usually adept at convincing everyone that they are the victim and the protective parent is the abuser. They are so good at this more often than not they can get CAFCASS and thus the court to believe this.
Usually, Social services are initially in agreement with the protective parent until it gets to court.
Where a protective parent is trying to stop his/her children from being exposed to an abusive parents behaviour, social services reports are overridden by the law that says that the children have a human right to have equal access and contact with both parents. This is regardless of how abusive one parent may have been. It is now in a court whose duty is to sort out the contact for the children, not the parents. In these courts, it is no longer about what the parents want.
We have uploaded a video here which shows that it is currently being looked at in parliament where even a rapist has a right to have contact with his child conceived by rape. So hopefully in the near future, we will see some big changes in these laws. But currently if the mother is in court stating that she does not want the children to know or see this man who raped her, in the family courts there have been cases that we are aware that the children were forced to live with the rapist whilst the mother was forced to have to see her children in a contact centre with a supervisor in case the mother talks to the children negatively about the abusive parent.
This of course flys in the face of justice, Nobody can see this as being right. But this is what happens in the family courts today. The fact that these courts are kept secret further protects the abuser whilst the victim in these cases often lose all contact with friends and family as they view the mother as having obviously lied about the rape or it would be the abuser that is having his contact under supervised conditions and the children living with the mother.
THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PARENTAL ALIENATION. BOTH PARENTS CAN BE ALIENATED AGAINST AND IT IS THE CASE THAT WHEN CHILDREN ARE TAKEN INTO CARE THEY CAN BECOME ALIENATED AGAINST THEIR NATURAL PARENTS.
In the case where a parent is turning the children against the other parent out of spite because that person has somehow hurt them, ended their relationship, or maybe had an affair. Any scenario can be a reason for a parent to want to hurt the other parent using the children. It's these parents who are not only making it hard on the other parent, and not only the children. But also every single mother who is telling the truth about the abusive another parent as they end up being tarred with the same brush as her.
The problem with how things used to be historically where the mother was always the caregiver and homemaker and the father the breadwinner, it has been a natural transition whereby the mother gets to take care of the child whilst the father left and had contact. Nowadays, of course, it can be that the father is left with the children with the mother leaves, and the father can be the alienator against the mother. though this is still less likely even today.
whatever the sex of the parent with care. holding a grudge and become the alienator by using the children to get at the other parent means they are the abuser in the eyes of CAFCASS and the family courts. So it isn't actually about men against women and women against men, it isn't a gender issue and should not see this way either or we begin to lose the whole issue of the problem and that is poisoning children's minds to a parents way of thinking and believing negatively and angrily about another person. That person is a part of those children.
You are in effect breaking the law where you are refusing a parent contact. The law says that all children have a right to know both parents.
Parental alienation can lead to the main caregiver who is alienating the children losing custody and the children being put into care or in the care of the alienated parent after being “worked on to like the other parent.” after years of being told this other parent is, in fact, a very nice person who may have made some mistakes.
This is a difficult one to judge and it can and does happen that the courts do get it wrong and the children can end up in the care of an abuser and extreme manipulator’s care because the one accused of alienation was actually telling the truth about the abuses they and the children have suffered whilst the courts to end up placing the children into that persons care. Parental alienation can be a problem in itself causing more problems ultimately for everyone including the children and the court.
In cases where children are placed into care to work on their relationship with the other parent, it can sometimes be the only solution that is right and fair to put the children's needs first where parental relationships are damaging to the children emotionally.
However, this action in itself causes so much trauma to the children being removed from the parent who has cared for them all of their life. This action in itself can be emotionally damaging and abusive to the children. So what is the answer?
It is a case of whether the children staying in these damaging situations is the lesser of two evils or if the problems between the parents are so damaging they would be better out of their care whilst having supervised contact with both parents.
The best thing is to try and get children to understand that whilst you as parents may not get along with certain people they should make their own minds up about where they want to live and who they want to see. whilst separating both parents views with theirs, of course, the answer is to ask them.
Therapy should be used here where the therapist should ascertain why a child doesn't like one of their parents and whether their views are their own or if these ideas have been planted by the potentially alienating parent.
Ensuring the children's decisions are their own based on their experiences is paramount in these cases...
If they are young, doing art therapy with them may help them draw their thoughts and reasoning which can be used in court.
Parents with care being accused of parental alienation could do this work to show that they are understanding what parental alienation means and that they are aware of the links of the children to their other parent by drawing a family tree and remembering that the moment that they have a child with the other parent, that they are linked to that person through the children for the rest of their lives, no matter how much you no longer like this person, or how he has harmed you, this person is a part of these children that you love so much and they need to believe this other person has some good characteristics that made you like them in the first place. Taking steps to separate their feelings and not putting their views onto the children distinguishes a good parent from a bad parent.
getting educated in child psychology helped me a lot, as well as I could talk from a more professional view rather than a layman's view of my children's feelings which is what ended in me getting my own boys returned to me.
Written for Family court support by Catherine Love
When parents separate, where the children live, how much time they spend with mum or dad, can be hard to agree.
Sometimes a child starts refusing to see their other parent.
This autumn, social workers who look after a child's interests in the family courts are being given new guidelines to help with these cases.
For the first time this will consider the possibility a child has been deliberately turned against one parent, by the other.
Parental alienation, as it's called, will be just one of the options a social worker might consider.
It's a controversial concept which the courts have been trying to grapple with for years in cases where the parents are locked into entrenched legal action over contact.
There is no consensus and not a great deal of research, so how might it be considered by courts here?
The intensity or frequency of behaviour might be one of the ways this is set apart from the disagreements that are often part of separation.
"Think of a child experiencing a separation, the mother or father bad mouthing, or withholding warmth and affection unless they agree with an argument," says Sarah Parsons of the Children and Families Court Advisory Service.
"If it's repeated it can have an invasive, intrusive effect on wellbeing. A child can think the only way to stay safe is to side with one parent and reject the other."
The recognition in the advice to social workers does not mean other possibilities won't be considered.
Children might refuse to see a parent because of authoritarian or abusive behaviour, or because they feel naturally emotionally very attached to one parent.
High level of conflict
So how common might parental alienation be?
Around 10% of separated parents have contact agreements made through the courts.
Each year around 1,400 cases return to court in England seeking enforcement of contact orders, according to research published by the Nuffield Foundation in 2013.
Professor Liz Trinder, from the University of Exeter, has studied cases where there is a high level of conflict between the parents.
She thinks the idea of parental alienation as a pattern of behaviours needs to be treated carefully, because the courts have a duty to consider the child's best interests.
Part of that is listening carefully to what children say themselves about their feelings.
"The problem with the alienation concept is that if your premise is the child has been brainwashed, it means you can't trust what the child is saying to the court. So if you make an accusation of alienation it almost automatically casts suspicion on anything the child might say."
Image captionParental alienation is one option social workers might consider
Professor Trinder believes England could learn from Canada, where concerns emerged of counsellors and expert advisors to the courts whose careers were invested in a strong belief in parental alienation.
The consequences of a diagnosis of alienation can have a huge impact on a child, she argues, with some supporters of the concept arguing it should lead to a transfer of care and residency.
"Supporters of alienation will generally insist that should be done literally overnight. So the child is removed from the alienating parent and placed with the so called innocent parent, and the child won't have any contact with the first parent. For me that feels like child abuse"
The charity Women's Aid has also expressed concern this year that accusations of parental alienation may lead to a history of an abusive relationship not being given enough weight.
While some campaigners have tried to press for its recognition as a syndrome the charity warned the development of the theory in the US has been highly disputed.
All of this is very challenging for the family courts to manage.
In one case in 2010 which provoked debate a family court ordered a 12-year-old boy should be transferred from living with his mum, to his dad.
Contact with his father had broken down four years previously, but the court battles had lasted most of his life.
An appeal by his mother was turned down.
Then an appeal on behalf of the boy led to him being put into foster care with the aim of building contact with his father before a move.
In contact sessions with his father, the boy was described as sitting with his head in his lap, hands over his ears.
The court eventually accepted the order could not be enforced.
The judge was told the father, described as "wholly deserving", was heard sobbing as he left the final contact meeting.
CAFCASS said it hopes its guidelines will help form a basis for social workers to explore what is happening with both parents, rather than attributing blame.
But Sarah Parsons also said it is important not to overlook the lifelong impact where a child is alienated.
"It can be devastating, an adult can look back on childhood and feel misled by trusted parents, adults can have mental health issues, just like any other abuse would.
More on family law weeks balanced view of parental alienation can be found here.
Here is a case where the law states where it stands in regards to the resident parent Promoting contact with the absent parent.
Re S promoting a relationship with the absent parent 2004
21/08/2013 17:54
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWCA Civ 18
Case No: B1 2003/2354
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Middlesborough County Court
(Mr Recorder Bullock)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
28th January 2004
B e f o r e :
THE PRESIDENT
LORD JUSTICE THORPE
and
LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH
____________________
Between:
Re S (A child)
____________________
Ms J. Richards (instructed by Watson Woodhouse) for the Appellant
Mr G. Ford (instructed by Freers) for the Respondent
Hearing dates : 4th December 2003
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P. :
The Background
"(1) When a court determines any question with respect to -
(a) the upbringing of a child; or
(b) the administration of a child´s property or the application of any income arising from it,
the ´child´s welfare shall be the court´s paramount consideration."
"The Court reiterates that in judicial decisions where the rights under art 8 of parents and those of a child are at stake, the child´s rights must be the "paramount" consideration. If any balancing of interests is necessary, the interests of the child must prevail (see Elsholz v Germany [2001] ECHR 25735/94 at para 52 and TP and KM v UK [2001] ECHR 28945/95 at para 72).
"how capable each of his parents, and any other relevant person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs."
"a contact order" means an order requiring the person with whom a child lives, or is to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order, or for that person and the child otherwise to have contact with each other;
"a residence order" means an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live;"
"both mothers and both fathers have equal rights before the court."
"It is the general proposition, underpinned undoubtedly by the Children Act 1989- and indeed the father has correctly reminded us of the importance of continuing relationships between children and their parents- that it is in the interests of a child to retain contact with the parent with whom the child does not reside. The courts generally set their face against depriving a child of such contact and urge reluctant care-taking parents to make contact work, however difficult it may be for that parent who very often does not understand the importance of that continuing contact."
"it is almost always in the interest of the child that he or she should have contact with the other parent. The reason for this scarcely needs spelling out. It is, of course, that the separation of parents involves a loss to the child, and it is desirable that that loss should so far as possible be made good by contact with the non-custodial parent, that is the parent in whose day to day care the child is not."
"Where parents do not live together, the court recognises the importance of the particular bond which exists in most cases between a child and the parent with the principal care of the child�..It does not give that parent greater rights. It does mean that the court will take care to safeguard and preserve that bond in the best interests of the child."
"(3) The courts recognise the critical importance of the role of both parents in the lives of their children. The courts are not anti-father and pro-mother or vice versa. The court´s task, imposed by Parliament in section 1 of the Children Act 1989 in every case is to treat the welfare of the child or children concerned as paramount, and to safeguard and promote the welfare of every child to the best of its ability.
(4) Unless there are cogent reasons against it, the children of separated parents are entitled to know and to have the love and society of both their parents. In particular, the courts recognise the vital importance of the role of non-resident fathers in the lives of their children, and only make orders terminating contact when there is no alternative."
"Neither parent should be encouraged or permitted to think that the more intransigent, the more unreasonable, the more obdurate and the more uncooperative they are, the more likely they are to get their own way."
"The court system for dealing with contact disputes has serious faults, which were identified and addressed in Chapter 10 of the Report of the Children Act Sub-Committee(CASC) of the Lord Chancellor´s Advisory Board entitled Making Contact Work. ��� In particular, the court process is stressful for both parents and children, it is expensive for those who are not publicly funded; it is slow and adversarial. It tends to entrench parental attitudes rather than encouraging them to change. It is ill adapted to dealing with the difficult human dilemmas involved, notably when it comes to the enforcement of its orders."
"Fortunately, most separating parents are able to negotiate contact without the need to go to court. Contact disputes are best resolved outside the court system. Making Contact Work identified a number of ways in which this could be achieved.
(10) Contact in my experience works best when parents respect each other and are able to co-operate; where the children´s loyalties are not torn, and where they can move between their parents without tension, unhappiness or fear of offending one parent or the other."
Section 91(14)
"... as regards the section 91(14) order, I have recorded, and will record again, that this application is not brought frivolously, it is not brought in any vexatious manner at all, but there has to be some breathing space for everyone and I am simply going to say that no further application be made for a period of one year from this date, without the leave of the court."
"It is a discretionary power to be used in the best interests of the child concerned. It is a draconian order to be used with great care and sparingly. Its use must be proportionate to the harm it is intended to avoid."
"the court will need to be satisfied first, that the facts go beyond the commonly encountered need for a time to settle to a regime ordered by the court and the all too common situation where there is animosity between the adults in dispute or between the local authority and the family and secondly, that there is a serious risk that, without the imposition of the restriction, the child or the primary carers will be subject to unacceptable strain."
THORPE LJ:
CARNWATH LJ:
This is an appeal concerning a little girl, L, born on the 7th April, 1997 who is now 6. The parents are in dispute over the issue of contact between the father and his daughter. The appeal is from the order of Mr Recorder Bullock, dated the 15th October, 2003, in which he dismissed the father´s application for direct contact. He made an indirect contact order; refused the father´s application for a psychological assessment of the child and, under the provisions of section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, debarred the father from making any further section 8 application without leave of the court for the period of one year. This Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent of directing the parties jointly to instruct a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist to assess the family and the prospects of future contact. We directed that the case be restored to a circuit judge for directions after the report of the consultant psychiatrist had been filed. We directed that the case should, if possible, be heard by a judge who would be able to retain it and provide continuity. We set aside the section 91(14) order. I now set out my reasons for allowing the appeal.
L´s parents are not married. They met when the mother was about 18 and began to live together when the mother discovered that she was pregnant with L. They finally separated in April 1999 and the mother and L went to live with the maternal grandparents. The parents, after parting, remained on friendly terms and were able to agree arrangements for the father to see L and have her to stay. In April 2001 they went together to Disneyland and had an enjoyable holiday. Since that holiday, the relationship between the parents deteriorated to the extent that the mother on the 9th May 2001 applied for and was granted an ex parte injunction and on the 20th August 2001, the father gave non-molestation undertakings to the court. L had no contact with her father from May 2001 until the attempts at supervised contact in August 2002. The mother alleged incidents of domestic violence by the father, including two attempts to drag L out of the car and on one of those occasions injuring the mother on the arm. The father totally denied those allegations and alleged that the mother was unduly under the influence of the maternal grandmother. There was considerable hostility between the father and the maternal grandmother which arose from issues unconnected with the parents. It appears however that the child witnessed an altercation between the grandmother and the father and was distressed by it. The consequence of these unresolved disputes between the parents has been to sour the previously good relationship between the father and child.
The father applied to the county court for a contact order on the 25th June 2001. Over Christmas 2001 and during 2002 the father attempted to deliver Christmas, birthday presents and Easter eggs for L at the mother´s home. The police were called. The father approached members of the maternal family and friends in his attempts to reintroduce contact with his daughter. He attended a pony club event in which L and her mother were taking part which increased the tension between the parents and the stress on the child. A further non-molestation order was made on the 7th February.
Four CAFCASS reports were filed, dated the 27th September 2001, 30th April, 2002, 16th September, 2002 and 10th December 2002, from two separate CAFCASS reporters. The first CAFCASS report said that the mother was unlikely to support the principle of contact at that time. She described a child who remembered happy times with her father; said she did not like him and did not want to see him, but was not upset. The CAFCASS reporter suggested that the factual disputes between the parents over incidents of violence should be resolved by court findings and that it would be premature for her to make recommendations as to contact. The second CAFCASS report described a mother who had a determined opposition to any contact at all between the father and daughter. She had formed a new relationship and was about to get married. The reporter met L at school and reported that L was socially well-equipped, but with an underlying sense of anxiety which she focussed on her father. She did not want to try out any meetings with him. The CAFCASS reporter said that a catalogue of complaints was set out in the court papers but she felt that L might be at greater risk of emotional damage from the conflict between her parents than from the overspill of physical violence. Her view was that it was difficult to imagine that, under present circumstances, any contact could offer more by way of positive advantages than it would lose by negative side effects. There was no basis for negotiation or agreement. It was clear from her report that L was suffering distress and there was nothing to suggest that her fear was not real. There had been no further incidents alleged by the mother. The CAFCASS reporter made several alternative suggestions.
On the 26th July 2002, District Judge Bailey heard the father´s application for contact and tried to grapple with the problems raised by this case. In a short but careful judgment he criticised both parents. He found that the father had approached the question of contact in a most inappropriate manner. The mother was also to be criticised for not preparing L for contact, even though the behaviour of the father made it more difficult. The district judge adjourned the application to enable the father to have two periods of contact with L in the presence of the CAFCASS reporter. She would then report back and would also advise if a psychological report would be necessary.
In the third report the CAFCASS reporter reported on two contact visits observed by her in August 2002 in the CAFCASS office. On the first occasion L clung to her mother and refused to look at her father. On the second occasion the mother was persuaded to sit in the other room and L moved between the two rooms. She did not appear to be afraid but would not willingly leave her mother. The view of the mother, who had now married, was that the father had no part to play in their present lives. The CAFCASS reporter recommended contact once a month to be supervised by the mother.
After that report was filed the CAFCASS reporter observed three further contact sessions with the mother present. On the first two occasions in October the child was reluctant to do anything with the father and on the second occasion the father became angry and argued with the CAFCASS reporter. Watching this L became increasingly upset and asked to go home. The father felt as a result of each of these two occasions that his relationship with L had been good but it had been spoilt by the mother and that, if he and his family were given the opportunity, they would rekindle the latent affection. On the third occasion there was no real improvement in the strained atmosphere. The CAFCASS reporter set out the widely differing perceptions of the parents � the father that if he had unsupervised contact L would be happy with him and his family � the mother that L did not wish to see her father and should not be made to go. If contact were to be forced, she feared for her physical and emotional well-being. Seen again at school after these three contact periods, L said that she did not want to see her father. She was very anxious but determined. The CAFCASS reporter commented that she, herself, found the father to be threatening and aggressive and perhaps L did too. She felt that L had now become more entrenched in her opposition to contact with her father. She concluded that ´to further pursue this matter may be considered to be abusive of the child and would perhaps diminish any prospects for the future.´
The mother soon after gave birth to twins and for various reasons the father´s adjourned application was not listed for a further hearing until the 15th October 2003, a delay of over a year. The Recorder heard evidence from both parents. There had been no further investigation nor report on the family problems by CAFCASS since September 2002. Although the CAFCASS officer was called to give evidence before the Recorder, I understand that she had no up to date information and, according to counsel who appeared before us, she restated the points she had made in her previous report. The Recorder found that the incidents complained of by the mother were basically at a very minor level. He recognised that the father came over as a fairly aggressive person but had no doubt that the application for contact was made with the best of motives and with a deep seated desire to see his daughter and was not brought with any intention to intimidate the mother.
The Recorder expressed concern that the arrangements for supervising contact were on the basis that the mother did the supervising. He was satisfied that the mother was not behaving positively; it was obvious that she had no intention of making contact work and she had clearly imbued the child with such notions. She stated in court that she did not want direct contact and that view had got through to the child and the child´s beliefs were a direct result of the beliefs of the mother. This put the CAFCASS reporter in a very difficult position and the Recorder understood why the father believed that nobody was doing anything to assist him to re-establish the position with his own daughter. Although the mother was offering indirect contact, the Recorder commented on the statement of the mother that any presents the father sent to the child would be sent to the charity shop and expressed the view that that was an appalling position for a mother to take against a father. The Recorder had no confidence that indirect contact would really work.
The Recorder was asked by the father´s counsel to direct a psychological assessment of the child. He rejected the application on the basis that the child was not actually suffering any emotional harm; was doing well educationally; was being brought up well; was healthy and had no special needs. He could not see that a psychological assessment was going to achieve anything. In his view the only way the case would move forward was by the mother having a change of attitude and a psychological assessment would not assist that at all. The Recorder expressed the hope that the mother would have a change of mind without which contact could not move forward. He dismissed the father´ application for direct contact and made an order for indirect contact.
This Court has come to the conclusion that the door should not be closed at this stage on contact and, before setting out the reasons for coming to that conclusion, I turn to the general principles underpinning the approach of a family court to section 8 applications.
When the relationship between parents of children fails and they part, arrangements have to be made for the future welfare of those children. In the majority of cases the parents are able to agree and the case never comes to court or. This is, happily, also the result of many cases where an application is made by one parent but resolved at a preliminary stage by the judge, district judge and/or the CAFCASS reporter. Recent proposals, supported by the Government, have been made to promote pilot projects for early intervention which it is hoped will encourage parents to resolve their differences over their children before any court hearing. Such initiatives are much to be welcomed.
In the minority of cases where the parents cannot agree about the future arrangements for the child, the courts may become involved by the issue of applications by either or both parents.
The starting point for the court is section 1 of the Children Act 1989 which states
Since the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, the court has specifically to take into account the rights of each parent and of the child enshrined in article 8. The principle of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child is, nonetheless, recognised in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. In Yousef v Netherlands [2002] ECHR 33711/96, at paragraph 73, the European Court stated
The criteria set out in section 1(3) of the Children Act do not make any gender distinctions between the parents. The court is required to have regard, inter alia to the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child (considered in the light of his age and understanding, his physical, emotional and educational needs, any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering and under (3)(f)
Section 8 sets out the meaning of a contact order and of a residence order in subsection (1)
"In this Act -
No distinction is drawn between the rights and responsibilities of the mother and the father in residence or contact applications. In A& D and B& E [2003] EWHC 1376 (Fam), a decision upheld by this Court, Sumner J said at paragraph 302
In practice, after separation, the majority of children remain with the mother who is, for that reason, the more likely parent to seek a residence order. The father is, for the same reason, the more likely parent to seek a contact order. The court recognises the importance of a relationship between the non-resident parent and the child subject to such contact being compatible with the rights and welfare of the child. In re T (A Minor)(Parental Responsibility and Contact) [1993] 1 FCR 973 at page 984, I said
Sir Thomas Bingham MR in re O(A Minor) (Contact: Indirect Contact) [1996] 1 FCR 317 said at page 323
The court must also have regard to the parent who is the primary carer. Sumner J said in A&D (above) at paragraph 304
Wall J gave part of his recent judgment in re O, A Child [2003] EWHC 3031 (Fam) in open court and said
The problem arises for the court when there are serious disagreements between the parents which interfere with the ability of one or both parents to agree sensible arrangements about the children. Some parents engage in longstanding contact disputes which continue to return again and again to court. There are many reasons for these long-drawn out parental disputes over contact. In many such cases, the parents may not be able to agree because they have allowed their feelings of hurt and guilt at the separation together with anger post separation to poison their perception of the other parent. Such feelings lay the foundations of continued hostility to the other parent and an unwillingness or even an inability to agree or even to discuss anything with him/her. This continuing animosity over the failed relationship and inability to communicate with the other parent creates a serious impediment to any kind of fruitful relationship between the child and the non-resident parent. There are other impediments to contact such as a desire to exclude the other partner in the failed relationship from the new life, the influence of new partners or spouses or of grandparents, excessive use of drink or drugs, the mental or physical ill-health of one or both parents, a parent who has been violent, intimidating, or harassing of the other parent and/or the child, or allegations of physical, sexual or emotional abuse.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR pointed out in re O (above) at page 324
This court set out at some length in the case of Re L, Re V, Re M, Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334 guidance on contact in cases of domestic violence and more generally. Even in cases of proved domestic violence this Court did not rule out the possibility of contact by the offending parent with the children. The fact of violence and the seriousness of the incidents would, however, be highly relevant to the decision whether and in what circumstances contact might be ordered.
Article 8 reflects the pre-existing principles of domestic family law. The right to respect for family life is subject to all the factors set out in article 8(2) in respect of which the element of proportionality is highly significant. It is, in my judgment, crucial that the court has the greatest flexibility in deciding on the type and quantum of contact according to the circumstances of each individual case. It has been suggested by parents that there should be a presumption of equality of time spent by a child with each parent. This approach to contact would not be in the best interests of many children whose welfare is the issue before the courts. The court is not and should not be tied to a certain number of days which would be automatically ordered to be spent by the absent parent with the child. Children of all ages and circumstances may be the subject of contact orders and one blanket type of order may inhibit the court arriving at the decision which reflects the best interests of each individual child.
Some situations remain extremely difficult to manage from the point of view of the court and the CAFCASS reporter who may be advising the court. One example is the unreasonable mother who is implacably opposed to contact and without any good reason, wants to cut the father out of her and the child´s future life. An even more difficult situation is the child who, either influenced by the mother or by his own viewpoint or a combination of both, refuses to see the father. The third situation which may be combined with the first two situations or may arise entirely separately is the father who believes that he is ´perfect´, that the mother is to blame for everything and the child is prevented from a natural, loving relationship with him solely by the intransigence of the mother. In such a case the father may believe that an order by the court for unrestricted contact would have the result of a happy resumption of a loving relationship between him and the child. Such a father is able to see the beam in the eye of the mother but is wholly unable to see that there is a beam in his eye also and that his conduct has not been perfect. He may well have been responsible for unfortunate scenes with the mother in the presence of the child, from inappropriate behaviour under increasing frustration, and that behaviour has added more fuel to the flames of opposition by the mother and often by the child to contact. If the father becomes unreasonable there is a risk for him that his behaviour may become so unacceptable that he may, himself, make it impossible for contact to be resumed. In such a case the court may well call a halt and refuse to make a contact order, as Wall J did in re O (above).
Wall J chaired the sub-committee of CASC which reported in 2001 on enforcement of contact and made very useful recommendations to the Government. In that Report the inadequacies of the current aids to enforcement available to the judiciary were highlighted. If a mother is truly recalcitrant, the court can commit to prison for contempt or fine the mother. Most mothers do not have enough money to pay a significant fine and this sanction is seldom used, particularly since she is the primary carer of the child. Equally the sanction of prison for mothers who refuse to allow contact is a heavy one and may well be a self-defeating one. It will hardly endear the father to the child who is already reluctant to see him to be told that the father is responsible for the mother going to prison. Prison is a sanction of last resort and there is little else the court can do. At this stage also the court may have the evidence that the continuing efforts to persuade the mother to agree to contact are having a disproportionately adverse effect upon the child whose welfare is paramount and the court may be find it necessary, however reluctantly, to stop trying to promote contact. That is a very sad situation but may be necessary for a short or for a longer time if the welfare of the child requires it. One aspect of proportionality which has to be weighed in the balance is the length to which a court should go to force contact on an unwilling child and on the apprehensive primary carer. At this point the factor of proportionality becomes all-important since there is a limit beyond which the court should not strive to promote contact and the court has the overriding obligation to put the welfare of the child at the forefront and above the rights of either parent.
In re O, Wall J said at paragraph 6 of his judgment
At paragraph 9 he said
Those wise observations ought to be widely disseminated among parents before they are locked into their entrenched positions of conflict with the other parent of their children.
No parent is perfect but ´good enough parents´ should have a relationship with their children for their own benefit and even more in the best interests of the children. It is, therefore, most important that the attempt to promote contact between a child and the non-resident parent should not be abandoned until it is clear that the child will not benefit from continuing the attempt.
In the present appeal, on the findings of the Recorder, although the father had a somewhat aggressive manner, his desire for contact was genuine and the failure of contact was to be laid principally on the shoulders of the mother who had no intention of making contact work. Having found the mother primarily responsible for the failure of direct contact and that her offer of indirect contact was a ´sop to the court´ and not genuine, the Recorder then effectively closed the door on any form of contact for the foreseeable future. The prospect of the mother changing her mind without any incentive to do so was manifestly improbable and the order for indirect contact was accepted by the Recorder as unlikely to be effective. The father was debarred from making any application without leave for a year. After that length of time there would be no realistic prospect of success if the father were then to reapply and no break upon the mother´s clear intention to shut the father out of the child´s life and to continue to portray him in a totally negative light to the child. The effect of the Recorder´s decision has been, in reality, to abandon any possibility of a relationship between father and child for the foreseeable future. This may eventually be the sad outcome of this dispute, but, in my view, with a child of under 7 and a genuinely motivated father who some years before had regular contact with his daughter, the decision to abandon all hope of achieving some contact is premature.
The application by the father´s counsel for a psychological assessment is the possible key to a reconsideration of future contact. I well understand the Recorder´s hesitation and indeed the hesitation of the district judge to an assessment of the child. The application was couched in too restrictive terms and neither the Recorder nor the district judge looked beyond the form of the application. It is not the child alone who needs to be considered in an assessment, although there can be little doubt from the reports that L has, by now, suffered some emotional harm from the behaviour of her parents towards each other. What is needed in this case is a broad assessment of the child in the context of the family, that is to say the father, the mother and the child to gauge the depth of the hostility and the rancour from the failed relationship of the parents, the extent to which the child is saying what she has learnt from her mother and her own concerns about her father. It would also be necessary to investigate whether the father, who has shown somewhat unrealistic expectations that the child would on ordinary contact respond to him affectionately and who has acted, from time to time, in an aggressive and even intimidating manner, could be brought to a more sensible and sensitive approach to this very difficult problem.
I do not under-estimate the difficulty in trying to rekindle the relationship between this father and this daughter. The mother has some grounds for objecting to the approach of the father to contact. She also has the strong incentive to dismiss the father from her life and to concentrate upon her marriage and her new family. The father´s contact would be an intrusion into that new life. The child may well have underlying concerns about her father as well as those she has learnt from her mother. The father´s aggressive approach to contact and his unrealistic and idealised concept of the prospects of good contact with L and that he is a ´perfect father´ are real barriers to a sensible approach to a truly difficult problem as to whether an attempt should be made at all to restart contact and, if so, how to do so. I am however satisfied, for my part, that the problems should be explored and that the judge who takes over this case should have the information as to whether and in what circumstances a further effort should be made.
I wish to add some comments on the section 91(14) direction in the order. The Recorder was asked by mother´s counsel to make a section 91(14) direction which was opposed by counsel for the father. The Recorder said
In making those observations and in imposing a one year restriction on the father, the Recorder failed to have regard to the guidelines laid down in this Court in several decisions, principally in re P (a child) residence order: child´s welfare) [1999] 2 FCR 289 at pages 310 et seq; re C (children: contact) [2002] EWCA Civ 292; [2002] 3 FCR 183; re G (a child) (contempt: committal order) [2003] EWCA Civ 489; [2003] 2 FCR 231 paragraphs 35-37. I said in re P, at page 310, that section 91(14) should be read in conjunction with section 1(1). In re G, I summarised the guidance at paragraph 36
There will be cases where a breathing space is needed, even though the parent against whom the order is made, has not behaved unreasonably. In re P, in guideline (vii) I said that in such a case
There was no evidence in the present case of such a situation. The Recorder was in error in imposing a section 91(14) restriction and this Court set it aside.
I have had the advantage of reading the President´s judgment with which I agree.
Those who are abused in an intimate relationship or in its aftermath, and those who perceive themselves to have been so abused, have high expectations of redress in the family justice system. They are often disappointed in those expectations and naturally find some solace in association with others who share their experiences. An obvious illustrative group is of those, usually fathers, who perceive that they have been denied their due role in the upbringing of a child after the disintegration of the family. One of their commonest indictments of the family justice system is that it does little or nothing to uphold the relationship between father and child which depends for its most obvious outlet and expression on contact arrangements. If a paradigm case were wanted to illustrate the indictment it lies here in the present appeal.
Following the separation of the parents, contact arrangements were agreed without any apparent problems. After some two years of relatively successful operation, they foundered. The father applied to the court for a contact order. His application dated 21 June 2001 is the only application he has ever issued. In its subsequent pursuit, he has from time to time probably been both belligerent and insensitive. Certainly, he has given that impression to independent observers as well as to the mother. However throughout he has been committed and steadfast.
In July 2002 the mother proposed that a psychologist be instructed to carry out an assessment of their daughter´s apparent antipathy to contact. The proposal did not find favour with the district judge. When the father applied in December 2002 for a direction to the same effect the mother opposed the application. The district judge upheld her opposition. The father sought to appeal. The circuit judge refused him an extension of time in the exercise of his discretion. The good reason for refusal given by the judge was that there was another hearing imminently listed for further consideration of the father´s contact application. That fixture on 19 March was adjourned because the welfare officer was not available. The next fixture in July was also adjourned on the grounds that the mother had just given birth to twins. Thus when the case was eventually put before the Recorder on 15 October it was more than twelve months since the last unsuccessful attempt at supervised contact. In the circumstances the father´s counsel recognised that an order directing the immediate resumption of contact was problematic. Accordingly her realistic target was to obtain a direction for an assessment by a mental health professional. It will at once be seen that fifteen months had elapsed since that option was first mooted, fifteen months of relative sterility.
On 15 October the case had a stale look. The CAFCASS officer´s report was dated 10 December 2002. The father´s most recent statement was dated 25 February 2002. On 21 July 2003 the mother had issued an application for an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 and had supported that application with a statement sworn on 14 July.
However the Recorder heard oral evidence not only from the mother and father but also from the court welfare officer. It is of great significance that his subsequent findings and assessments rest on that foundation. He was clearly not much impressed by the mother´s complaints of the father´s past conduct. He was clearly impressed by the father´s emotional attachment to his daughter and the sincerity of his motives in pursuit of the contact application. He rejected the court welfare officer´s assessment of the roots of the child´s antipathy. He was trenchant in his criticism of the mother for having implanted in the child her determined opposition to a regime of contact.
Against those findings his rejection of the father´s application (for the appointment of an expert) and his grant of the mother´s application (for a partial bar on the father´s right of access to the court) seem to me little short of perverse. Whilst recognising the recorder´s sense of frustration confronted with a complex problem with little prospect of foreseeable improvement, it is an outcome such as this which attracts justifiable criticism. Whatever the difficulties, however scant the prospects of success, the courts must not relent in pursuit of the restoration of what had been a natural relationship between father and daughter, absent compelling evidence that the welfare of the child requires respite.
Of course judges in cases such as the present have very little resources upon which they can call to support their endeavours. This deficiency was plainly identified by the report of the sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor´s Family Law Advisory Board chaired by Mr Justice Wall. But at least the judge can refer to a child and adolescent mental health professional and the initial assessment may identify local services able to offer either family therapy or therapy for individual family members. It is to be hoped that judges will in future be able to look to CAFCASS to provide more support in the implementation of contact orders. Local mediation services should also be amongst the range of options considered by the judge.
I agree with both judgments.
On the other hand parental alienation can be devastating for both the alienated parent and children who once adored the alienated parent but now feel they must align themselves with the alienator.
Members of Families Need Fathers can view our Factsheet on Parental Alienation here.
Here is a link to a 2017 judgement which is well worth reading as it deals very effectively (if belatedly) with an alienating parent.
PLEASE REMEMBER IT CAN ALSO BE A FATHER ALIENATING THE CHILD AGAINST THE MOTHER too but statisticly it is mothers alienating a father.
Parental Alienation (PA) refers to a situation in which a resident parent (usually but not exclusively) turns their child against the non-resident parent, intentionally or unintentionally, resulting in the child’s supposed desire to reject all contact with that parent. There is still much debate among medical and psychological experts as to whether this behaviour pattern constitutes a syndrome, often referred to as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) which was initially described by Dr Richard Gardner (Gardner, R. A (1989), Recommendations for Dealing with Parents who induce a Parental Alienation Syndrome in their children, Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 28 (3/4): 1-23).
Currently, PA is not officially recognised although there is much activity worldwide to influence its acceptance in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM- V.
You may well find useful information in books and articles about PA and PAS but we advise that you do not use the term PAS in court proceedings as your arguments regarding what has happened to your children may become sidetracked into barren arguments about the use of the word Syndrome. Syndrome is a term used by medical practitioners, and usually implies a diagnosis.
In practice however poisoning against one parent does occur, and is a genuine problem which goes strongly against a child’s best interests. This effect is being increasingly recognised in the Family Courts in the UK, which is encouraging.
The question “why should children who were initially close to both parents suddenly seek to reject one of them” (Journal of Parental Alienation, Vol. 2 No 2- March/April 2006; Dr. L. F Lowenstein) is often raised at the beginning of a Family Court case. The child is ‘programmed’ by the alienating parent against the other, and is used as a tool in the process of exclusion of an ex-partner, thereby emotionally harming the child by depriving them of a good parent.
Judges, CAFCASS staff, social workers, and others often fail to recognise parental alienation as a genuine case of significant emotional abuse, and these children may lose a loved and loving parent for a long time or sometimes permanently. This situation is often referred to in UK courts as ‘implacable hostility’ caused by the ‘controlling’ parent subjecting the child to this form of emotional abuse. This can have devastating life-long effects for the children, excluded parent, grandparents and the child’s other parent.
PAS Intervention, a 501c3 nonprofit for dealing with Parental Alienation/Custodial Interference/Hostile Aggressive Parenting. No matter what you call it, it is a form of psychological abuse when a parent is alienated from their children. At PAS Intervention, we are dedicated to Ending Child Abuse and Parental Alienation through educational awareness, research/development, free online support groups, legislation, legal and any other venue available to us. Please feel free to also contact us at info@pas-intervention.org We are always there for you.* Scroll down for more information.
PARENTAL ALIENATION AND THE NEW CAFCASS ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK
Posted: 15/02/2019
When parents separate, the way that a child experiences the breakdown will vary from individual to individual. Their feelings may manifest in a myriad of ways including anger, withdrawal, truancy and emotional outbursts. Research is clear that a child’s reactions and feelings are influenced by the adult behaviour to which they are exposed.
Sadly, some separating parents are unable to contain their hostility towards the other parent for whatever reason and this can impair their ability to co-parent responsibly. Harmful conflict can arise when parents are unable to put the needs of their child first. At the most extreme and intense end of the parenting spectrum, these parents may, as a consequence of their negative feelings, abuse their parental responsibility. They may misuse their parental position in a way that can cause grave emotional harm to their child, including alienating the other parent from the child’s life.
The most extreme of cases, for example where one parent falsely accuses the other parent of sexual abuse to try to prevent them from having any relationship with the child, can amount to a child protection issue which can take many months, if not years, to resolve through the courts.
Parental alienation, a form of psychological abuse against both the child and the rejected parent, is a concept which is becoming more recognised and understood in the UK. There is no single definition but it is now recognised by Cafcass (court appointed social workers) as arising ‘when a child’s hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent’. Typically it results in a parent being rejected by their child for no justifiable reason, having previously had a loving relationship. It is an extremely harmful behaviour that can have a life-long impact on a family.
There is now specific guidance available to Cafcass officers who are responsible for reporting to the court on suspected parental alienation cases within family proceedings, called the Child Impact Assessment Framework (CIAF). Further information is here.
The parent negatively influencing a child can sometimes know that they are deliberately seeking to alienate a child. An alienating parent with insight into the effect of their behaviour can act in certain ways to oust the other parent, often in an obsessive way. Other cases are more complex and, whilst the alienating parent may feel genuinely concerned for their child when in the care of the other parent, their concerns can be unfounded and experienced for reasons such as an undiagnosed personality disorder which affects their judgment. Anecdotally, it is believed that restoring a direct relationship, often with the help of specialist support, as soon as possible can be one of the best ways to ensure a child can rebuild and maintain their relationships with both parents. As a last resort, the court is also able to ‘switch residence’ from one parent to another.
Notwithstanding the above, it is important to distinguish between parental alienation and other reasons why a child may say that they do not wish to spend time with a parent. These can include:
post-separation rejection – a common and often temporary reaction to the changing family situation;
justified rejection – for example where the child has been harmed by a parent or is frightened of them because of domestic abuse or other harmful parenting, such as neglect or substance misuse;
attachment – age and gender specific reactions to resist time with the other parent including separation anxiety;
affinity/alignment – where a child prefers spending time with one parent over the other. This can develop before/during/after separation;
harmful conflict – where the parents actively disagree with each other and are unable to put the needs of the child first. This varies in intensity/impact.
The CIAF examines the underlying cause(s) for any rejection and identifies any risk to a child, including emotional harm, as a first step. The reasons for parental rejection by a child are often complex and require specialist help to identify and investigate before they can start to be resolved. Laura Hughes, senior associate in Penningtons Manches’ family team, commented: “The new Cafcass guidance is a positive step to equip those responsible for making decisions about a child’s welfare with the right tools to unearth the reality of family dynamics. It is hoped this will enable a more robust investigation and the means to safeguard a child’s emotional wellbeing from the outset.”
As Resolution members, Penningtons Manches’ family law specialists focus on enlisting the right mix of legal and other expert help for children and parents as they begin to move forward following parental relationship breakdown. If an extreme parenting dynamic develops, such as rejection through parental alienation, a swift ‘diagnosis’ and instruction of appropriate expert input will be vital to ensure that the court is aware of the extent of the issues impacting the family.
https://www.familyseparationclinic.com/
CONTACT
Karen Woodall
Lead Therapist at FSC. Co-Author of Understanding Parental Alienation - Charles Thomas 2017. Ph.D Candidate 2017/21
London, Greater London, United Kingdom
I am a writer as well as a psychotherapist and I am known around the world for my work with children who suffer from induced psychological splitting after divorce or separation (also known as parental alienation).
I write about my work with children and families on this blog and about the wider social influences that impact upon families as they go through divorce.
My major focus is on treatment of the induced psychological splitting which is caused when children are unable to hold different realities in mind, this has been called parental alienation for many years but is in fact a defence mechanism which is readily treated therapeutically when it is properly understood.
I offer coaching and therapy to everyone affected by parental alienation and have a high rate of success both within the family courts and outside of it, in successful reunification of alienated children and families.
I am now focused almost entirely on working with families beyond reunification, where the tasks of recovery are obvious and treatment routes are desperately needed.
Parental alienation is a serious form of child abuse in which the harm done to children is often not recognised until much later in the child’s life.
My research work as a PhD candidate at Regents University is focused upon understanding the impact on adults of unresolved psychological splitting in childhood.
You can hear more about parental alienation in this radio programme made by Philippa Perry for Radio Four in 2019.