News
Important new decision: expert’s opinion that children were ‘alienated’ thrown out 5 years after court removed children from mother
The High Court overturns a finding that a mother ‘alienated’ her children in a case supported by Rights of Women, ruling that the decision was based on flawed evidence from an unregulated psychologist.
Rights of Women have been supporting a mother* to return to Family Court to challenge findings that she alienated her children from their father. The mother applied to re-open findings of alienation made by the judge in 2020 which were entirely based on the opinion of an unregulated psychologist. New information about the unregulated psychologist who assessed the children as alienated, together with recent guidance on how to approach cases of this type, provided the necessary evidence to cast doubt on the earlier decisions.
In the judgment O v C [2025] EWFC 334, the High Court judge agreed that the decision should be re-opened, stating that:
the findings of fact that the judge said he was making in paragraphs 50 and 51 of his judgment were based on an uncertain and, indeed, mistaken foundation.
The district judge did not specifically say that he found as a fact that the mother had alienated the children, but he did say that the mother had caused the children harm as a result of her parenting, based on Ms Gill’s ‘findings’.
The court ordered the removal of the children from the mother’s care in 2020. Decisions about the arrangements for the children now are ongoing. The judge stated that the reports of the unregulated psychologist should not be taken into account by anyone providing further assessment of the children, including Cafcass.
We are pleased to have supported the mother to bring this case, but she and her children have endured years of trauma and suffered damage to their relationships because of the court’s failure to recognise flawed evidence. She spoke to a journalist permitted to report on the case here:
This judgment demonstrates an approach that may be helpful for other women to follow, in particular, where ‘parental alienation’ has been ‘diagnosed’ by an unregulated psychologist. It also provides a basis for additional challenges being considered in relation to regulated psychologists, psychotherapists and Cafcass reports that have adopted the same approach to ‘diagnosis’ of ‘parental alienation’.
We continue to call on the Government to ban unregulated psychologists and psychotherapists from providing expert evidence to the Family Court altogether. The Family Procedure Rules Committee (FPRC) consulted on proposals in relation to experts earlier this year. Sadly, their initial proposals would fail to protect women like the mother in this case. The response to the consultation is awaited. Our response to the consultation critically examines the deficiencies in their proposals and provides evidence to support our position:
* Rights of Women have the consent of our client, the mother, to speak publicly about her case and its broader significance.