Family Court declines to reopen parental alienation findings

Rights of Women represented the mother in Re SB, a case about whether earlier decisions about ‘parental alienation’ should be reopened after her daughter was removed from her care in 2020.

In the recently published judgment, the court refused the mother’s application to reopen earlier decisions.

Case law to date has focused on unregulated psychologists. The psychologist appointed in Re SB is regulated.

Background

In December 2020, a judge, sitting in Newcastle Family Court, held a hearing in a long running child arrangements case at the end of which she ordered the immediate removal of a 10-year-old girl from her mother’s care.

During the case, the mother repeatedly told the court that she had experienced domestic abuse. The judge refused several requests for a fact-finding hearing on the domestic abuse allegations. In June 2020 there was a fact-finding hearing addressing two incidents raised by the child, and the mother was prevented from pursuing findings of domestic abuse at that hearing.

The court appointed a regulated psychologist to assess the family. The regulated psychologist’s view was that the child had experienced ‘severe parental alienation’.

At the start of the December 2020 hearing, the court decided to consider some of the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse and went on to make some findings in relation to the father’s behaviour. The court also found that some of the mother’s behaviour amounted to ‘severe parental alienation’, in line with the psychologist’s opinion, and ordered the child’s immediate removal from the mother’s care to live with the father.

The decision in Re SB

Six years later, our client’s time with her daughter has either not taken place at all for extended periods or has been supervised by professionals.

The mother applied for the earlier decisions in relation to parental alienation to be reopened, applying the ‘modern approach’ to alienating behaviours set out in Re Y and the 2024 Family Justice Council guidance. The court was also invited to deem the reports of the regulated psychologist and Cafcass guardian in relation to parental alienation inadmissible.

The mother is disappointed that the judge refused her application and is carefully considering the next steps.

Judgment here.

End Note

In December 2024, the Family Justice Council (FJC) issued detailed guidance on how the Family Court should approach cases in which it is alleged that a child has been subjected to ‘alienating behaviour’. The guidance was endorsed by the President of the Family Division and was intended to bring greater consistency to an area in which courts and professionals had previously taken markedly different approaches. The guidance is particularly important where domestic abuse is also alleged. The court should consider the domestic abuse first and then consider the allegation of alienating behaviour through that factual lens. The guidance also supports courts and professionals when considering the importance of the child’s voice and how to consider welfare decisions when there have been findings of alienating behaviour.

In Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38, the President of the Family Division accepted that a finding of alienating behaviour which predates the FJC guidance can, in an appropriate case, be brought back before the court and reconsidered in the light of what is now described as the “modern approach”.