Domestic abuse and allegations of ‘parental alienation’: when pseudoscience enters the family justice system

By Dr Charlotte Proudman

I have long been advocating for reforms in the family justice system to ensure support for survivors of domestic abuse. My primary concern is the use of ‘parental alienation’ allegations to undermine and even invalidate domestic abuse (allegations or findings). I am not alone in raising this either—the Ministry of Justice, the United Nations, and Parliament have all heard about this worrying trend, yet it consistently continues to play out in the family courts. ‘Parental alienation’ is not accepted by the American Psychological Association (APA) nor the World Health Organisation (WHO), which removed it from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) in 2020. ‘Parental Alienation’ does not appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). The European Association for Psychotherapy (2018) considers it “unsuitable for use in any psychotherapeutic practice.” The use of the term has become a weapon wielded by abusers to maintain control over their victims even after the relationship has ended, effectively enabling post-separation abuse.

‘Parental alienation’ was originally coined by Dr Richard Gardner as ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (PAS).  Dr Gardner believed that the Syndrome was present when one parent manipulated a child’s relationship with the other parent through psychological tactics. His PAS theory was often used to dismiss child survivors of child sexual abuse. His work was never peer-reviewed. His obituary in the Independent recounts a concerning instance of his sympathy towards paedophilia and incest:

“Asked once by an interviewer what a mother was supposed to do if her child complained of sexual abuse by the father, Gardner replied: "What would she say? Don't you say that about your father. If you do, I'll beat you.”

Despite being discredited, it is surprising to see Dr Gardner repeatedly quoted in psychological assessments and even referenced in so-called expert oral evidence before the family courts. Often such references go unchallenged and, in some cases, endorsed.

As United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem highlighted in the report A/HRC/53/36: Custody, violence against women and violence against children - Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences (April 2023), there is a disturbing trend where family courts dismiss credible allegations of domestic violence, often judging them as manipulative efforts by mothers to alienate their children from their fathers:

“The tendency to dismiss the history of domestic violence and abuse in custody cases extends to cases where mothers and/or children themselves have brought forward credible allegations of physical or sexual abuse. In several countries, family courts have tended to judge such allegations as deliberate efforts by mothers to manipulate their children and to separate them from their fathers. This supposed effort by a parent alleging abuse is often termed “parental alienation” (p.2)

This misapplication of ‘parental alienation’ not only undermines the experiences of survivors but also falsely portrays victim-parents (often, but not exclusively, mothers) as abusers, turning the legal system into a battleground where justice is hard to find. The UN, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Council of Europe, and the European Parliament have all discouraged the use of ‘parental alienation.’

In 2020, the Ministry of Justice published the Harm Report, which detailed the chilling effect the use of ‘parental alienation’ allegations has on domestic abuse survivors.

a) If the child is resistant to contact with the abusive parent, the perpetrator and the professionals may assume that it is due to parental alienation rather than domestic abuse [p60]. Professionals and the courts are failing to listen carefully to the child.

b) Submissions to the Harm report stated that victims were advised by professionals and their own lawyers not to raise domestic abuse because the courts would take a negative view of this and it may be used against them as evidence of parental alienation [p60].

c) The panel was told that perpetrators were sometimes allowed to raise counter allegations of parental alienation and that these were taken seriously, even when there was little or no supporting evidence. There was a perception that there is a lower threshold for raising allegations of parental alienation than there is for raising domestic abuse or child sexual abuse [P62]. 

d) “Mothers and some professionals also raised the issue of ‘expert’ evidence on parental alienation. They felt that the credentials of such ‘experts’ were not always examined or challenged by the court” [p63].

e) Mothers shared their fears that disclosing abuse could lead to accusations of ‘parental alienation,’ risking the loss of their children to the very abusers they’re trying to escape.

These mothers choose to endure the pain of hiding their survivorship and watch as their children potentially fall under the care of abusive partners. But to the mothers, it’s better than losing their children completely. I have encountered this dilemma repeatedly when representing mothers in court—they are willing to sacrifice everything, even themselves, to keep their children safe.

Below, I share a series of important cases, all of which involve disproven allegations of ‘parental alienation’ against survivors of abuse. While I rely on published decisions, other decisions have not been published and, therefore, cannot be referred to.

This is a significant issue of public concern following the BBC documentary last year: Family courts: Children forced into contact with fathers accused of abuse, which highlights case studies and academic peer-reviewed literature showing the harmful decisions being made by the courts under the label ‘parental alienation’ in cases of domestic abuse. In all the cases, fathers made disputed claims of “parental alienation.”

“All the fathers in the England-wide study, carried out by the University of Manchester and reported by the BBC, had responded in court to abuse allegations with the parental alienation concept - in which they claimed the mothers had turned the child against them without good reason. 

Dr Elizabeth Dalgarno, who led the research, says the concept is a "handy tool for abusers" and its acceptance by courts is a "national scandal"… 

The 45 mothers of the children in the University of Manchester study all reported serious health problems which they believed were linked to the stress of family court proceedings - including miscarriages, heart attacks and suicidal thoughts…

There should be "emergency measures" to tackle the use of parental alienation claims in court, she says. "There are catastrophic health impacts with children and adult victims of abuse considering or attempting suicide." 

 An initial amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill states that a victim of domestic abuse cannot be accused of parental alienation:

Amendment 82, Baroness Chakrabarti:

“After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause - 

"Parental alienation in criminal domestic abuse cases

In section 1 of the Children Act 1989, after subsection (7) insert -

"(8) Anyone involved in the case who is also a victim (of criminal conduct) within section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (meaning of "victim") cannot be considered by the family court as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation.''

Member's explanatory statement: This clause would seek to ensure that victims under this Bill could not be disadvantaged by considerations of parental alienation in the family court.”

The amendment has not been pursued further, and a new government has been selected.

In family court cases involving domestic abuse, Practice Direction 12J (PD12J) mandates that once abuse has been found, the court must evaluate whether an expert safety and risk assessment is necessary to ensure any contact arrangements are safe for the child and victim-parent. This assessment is crucial for understanding any ongoing risks to the child or involved parties (para 33 of PD12J). However, there’s a troubling pattern where the contact-at-all-costs culture can lead to PD12J being overlooked and/or misapplied. In cases where allegations of ‘parental alienation’ arise, the focus on that often results in the minimisation or outright dismissal of alleged and proven domestic abuse, putting vulnerable children and adults at further risk.

In making serious allegations of ‘parental alienation,’ several abusers nearly succeeded in derailing the pursuit of genuine justice. ‘Parental alienation’ remains present in family courts across England and Wales, with so-called 'experts' in this pseudo-science influencing court proceedings. Despite guidance from the Family Justice Council and the British Psychological Society’s Psychologists as Expert Witnesses in the family courts in England and Wales: Standards, competencies and expectations (Section 3: ‘Regulation,’ 2023) recommending that only qualified, regulated professionals be used, this guidance has not been fully adopted in the family courts, and unregulated ‘experts’ on ‘parental alienation’ are given the power to influence the lives of child- and parent-survivors. In March of 2023, the Guardian reported on MPs Taiwo Owatemi, Jess Phillips, and (now former MP) Alex Cunningham raising concerns about the use of unregulated experts to diagnose ‘parental alienation,’ noting that the allegations are skewed against mothers. Some judges have even praised unregulated 'experts' [Re A and B (Children: ‘Parental Alienation’) (No. 5)[2023] EWHC 1864 (Fam) at 66]. These cases below mark a shift, paving the way to support and protect survivors of abuse in the family court system; however, progress is slow. Alongside survivors and professionals, we urge the courts and government to address the issue with urgency.

Re GB (Part 25 Application: Parental Alienation) [2023] EWFC 150

“The decision about whether or not a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the Court to resolve and not a diagnosis that can or should be offered by a psychologist.” [21]

This case concerned long-running private law children proceedings. At a case management hearing, District Judge Sethi ordered the appointment of Dr Aurora to carry out a global psychological assessment of the parents and the two children [15]. The application was supported by the father and the children’s guardian and opposed by the mother [15]. One of the issues for the expert to opine on was ‘parental alienation.’ [21] The father had run a robust case that the mother had alienated the children from him, and he was the subject of false allegations made by the mother, which included child abuse, domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour. Rather than ordering a fact-finding hearing, DJ Sethi ordered a second psychological assessment. The first psychological assessment opined that the father “had elevated scores on the narcissistic and histrionic personality constructs. It was suggested he might use coercive anger to manage his feelings about relationships” [13].

The mother instructed me to appeal the decision to appoint a psychologist. She was granted permission to appeal on the papers. His Honour Judge Middleton-Roy concluded that an expert psychological assessment to decide whether ‘parental alienation’ is an issue in the case was wrong. Assessing ‘parental alienation’ is a question of fact for the judge to determine.

I submitted that the term/label of “parental alienation” is not a psychological condition capable of diagnosis. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal brought forth that the Judge was wrong to order a psychological assessment, which invited the expert to determine the factual matrix of disputed allegations, contrary to the President’s decision in Re C, that the Judge was wrong to order a psychological assessment of the parents and the children without considering the test of necessity under Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010; and that the judge failed to give any reasons for ordering a psychological assessment [8]. The appeal was upheld on all grounds.

The judgment referenced Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), where in paragraph 103, the President of the Family Division made observations on ‘parental alienation’ following submissions from the Association of Clinical Psychologists-UK (ACP).  

“Before leaving this part of the appeal, one particular paragraph in the ACP skeleton argument deserves to be widely understood and, I would strongly urge, accepted:

‘Much like an allegation of domestic abuse; the decision about whether or not a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the Court to resolve and not a diagnosis that can or should be offered by a psychologist. For these purposes, the ACP-UK wishes to emphasise that “parental alienation” is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, but a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through, what are termed as, “alienating behaviours”. It is, fundamentally, a question of fact.’

…Most Family judges have, for some time, regarded the label of ‘parental alienation’, and the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome of that name, as being unhelpful. What is important, as with domestic abuse, is the particular behaviour that is found to have taken place within the individual family before the court, and the impact that that behaviour may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both of his/her parents. In this regard, the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ should be the court’s focus, rather than any quest to determine whether the label ‘parental alienation’ can be applied.” [17]

Consequently, the order for a psychological assessment was set aside, and the matter was remitted for further hearing to address the father’s allegations of alienating behaviour and the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse. This ruling that ‘parental alienation’ is not diagnosable is in line with statements from WHO, the APA, the DSM-V, the ICD-11, the European Association for Psychotherapy, the UN, CEDAW, the Council of Europe, and the European Parliament, again, none of which recognise ‘parental alienation’ as a legitimate or evidence-based concept.

The court rightly determined that the question of whether ‘parental alienation’ exists should be assessed based on the facts, not through the lens of a debunked pseudoscience.

Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 (B) (28 March 2024)

Evidence of ‘parental alienation’ used in court to distress, confuse and frighten victims.

The matter then continued to a fact-finding hearing where the parent’s cross-allegations were before the court. The children’s guardian took a neutral and inquisitorial role. The judge found the father had used ‘parental alienation’ to distress, confuse and frighten her, and he obstructed her relationship with the children. The father was also found to have raped the mother twice, gaslit and abused her, persistently video recorded the mother and the children without their consent, which created an atmosphere of control and intimidation, and he used family court proceedings to torment the mother and the children. The mother was clear that she had not consented to photography during intercourse, nor had she consented to sex on holiday in July and August of 2020, which the judge accepted. Concerningly, it seems the mother’s reports to the police were not investigated, nor was she signposted to support services, and she only received information on seeking findings in the course of her court proceedings. [104]

The father utilised coercion and control in a number of ways, with specific emphasis placed on his use of video camera recordings due to the captured footage of an incident to which the police responded on 12 March 2022. The mother made an emergency call after the father prevented the daughter from leaving her room, and officers spoke with the child, who described being intimidated by the father, hurt by his actions, and scared of incidents. The camera footage was shown in court, wherein the child can be heard screaming and calling for the mother [85, 86]. The father blamed the mother and the child for the situation [87]. The mother describes her fear of reporting incidents to the police due to the father’s reactions- feelings of terror, intimidation, pain and fear. She described his actions as controlling, noting he was injured but waited roughly two days to contact police due to fears of upsetting the father [99].

Notably, this is one of the first published judgments referring to DARVO, an acronym that stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. The judgment stated, “He sought to represent himself throughout as a victim and that she was the perpetrator, seeking to reverse the role of victim and offender.” [124] Given the evidence, it was recognised that his use of DARVO was a submission with significant weight [132]. Furthermore, Dr Lopez described the father’s perceptions of himself as a victim and subject to injustice by the mother. [139]

“Dr Proudman on behalf of the mother submitted that the father sought throughout his evidence to deflect or deny, to attack the mother and to seek to reverse the role of victim and offender. In doing so, it was submitted, the father sought to act manipulatively to avoid taking responsibility for his own actions and to seek to shift the blame onto the mother, who is the victim of the domestic abuse perpetrated by him.

The mother asserts that in respect of his relationship with the children, the father lays all the blame at the mother’s door and accuses her of lying about behaviours he has engaged in. The mother submits that this is a pattern of behaviour, which was noted by Dr Lopez. In this Court’s judgment, having had the unique benefit of seeing and hearing the father give evidence, and having regard to all the evidence before the Court, there is significant weight in those submissions.” [132]

The mother was initially accused of ‘parental alienation’ by the father, who later withdrew the allegation under that exact phrasing. He did persist in allegations that her behaviours were used to negatively influence the children towards him, which the Court found no reliable evidence for: “Having the benefit of all the evidence, this Court can clearly and definitively make the finding that there is no reliable evidence of the mother instructing the children to speak negatively about their father.” [165] The Court did, however, come to the conclusion that the father had sought to manipulate the mother and children into believing he was a victim, which led to the children rejecting him. The court viewed the children’s response as justifiable. The father has consistently tried to convey false beliefs about the mother [165, 168] and accused her of colluding with the child, making up the abuse (specifically, the incidents collected on video camera in March 2022), and encouraging the children to misbehave [111].

“On the contrary, looking now at the whole picture, the evidence before the Court leads to the clear conclusion that the father has sought consistently, systematically and falsely to manipulate the mother, the children, professionals and the Court into believing that he is the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by the mother. His pernicious actions alone have resulted in both children rejecting him.

Both children are now refusing a relationship with him for reasons that are justifiable. The children have both aligned themselves fully with their mother, with whom they are living, by way of a normal and justifiable response to the father’s negative attitudes, communications and beliefs that have sought to denigrate, demean, vilify, malign, ridicule and dismiss the mother, persistently seeking to convey false beliefs about her.” [168]

Accusations of ‘parental alienation’ were used to frighten the mother- she was unable to give a clear report of her subjection to coercive control to the police due to fears of the system being against her as the father was attempting to give them the impression that she was alienating the children, including being in contact with CAFCASS in this regard. She also noted he accused her of mental health problems, sent messages about alienation and implied the mother had something wrong with her, that she was at fault, and hurt the children. She describes feeling anxious, alone, unbelieved, terrified and unable to leave. [100].

The court dismissed the father's accusations of ‘parental alienation,’ finding no reliable evidence that the mother influenced the children negatively. Instead, the children's rejection of the father was deemed a justifiable response to his abusive behaviour. The court concluded that the father's systematic manipulation to portray himself as a victim was clear, and his actions led to the justified rejection by his children. Consequently, the father was ordered to pay the mother over £50,000 in costs [15].

Re GB (Parental Alienation: Welfare) [2024] EWFC 168 (B) (24 May 2024)

Following the fact-finding hearing, the father did not accept or acknowledge in a meaningful way the serious findings made against him. At the final hearing, the judge ordered no direct contact between the father and the children, approved changing the children's surnames, and restricted the father's parental responsibility to the greatest degree possible [11, 12, 14]. A Section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 order was made, preventing the father from making further applications to the court without permission until the youngest child (9 years old at the time of the judgment) turns 16. This decision was driven by the need to protect the children and the mother from ongoing distress and the damaging impact of prolonged litigation.

Re A and B (children: expert’s reports) [2024] EWHC 948 (Fam)

During lengthy private law proceedings, the mother was found to be a victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by the father. Notwithstanding the findings made, the father continued to allege that the mother was alienating the children. Previously, an application had been made to the court for a psychological assessment, which the judge refused because it was not necessary. The father, who, despite a history of controlling, manipulative, and aggressive behaviour, applied for a psychological assessment of the family with a focus on parental alienation [3,5]. The children’s guardian proposed Dr Hardiman who described his ‘main interest’ as including ‘the assessment of families affected by high conflict post separation parenting and/or allegations of parental alienation’ [2]. Supporting the father, CAFCASS supported this assessment:

“The guardian accepts that had it been the judge’s intention for the expert to consider ‘disputed allegations or parental alienation’ that would be a ‘determinative flaw’ in the direction made. She suggested that the father’s counsel had sought to include reference to Dr Hardiman’s expertise in parental alienation as a pre-amble to the order, but that the judge had declined to do so.” [23]

His Honour Judge McPhee ordered the psychological assessment. The mother appealed the decision. I represented the mother on her appeal, which was opposed by the father, who had accused the mother of ‘parental alienation’—a claim that was not substantiated as the mother had consistently promoted contact between the children and their father [3].

This appeal highlighted (a) real concerns that findings of domestic abuse are minimised when allegations of parental alienation are raised. Draft guidance from the Family Justice Council (FJC) says that “Children who show resistance or unwillingness to maintain or build a relationship with a parent who has been abusive towards them or towards the other parent, may be found to have a justified response to that parent. The allegation of alienation will thus fail.” (FJC Draft Guidance, 2023, pg 7). (b) The court continues to treat allegations of ‘parental alienation’ as capable of psychological diagnosis when they are matters of fact for the court to determine; in this case, the court had already rejected the father’s allegations at previous hearings [17]. (c) Unfortunately, busy judges do not always explain why expert assessments are necessary when this is plainly a requirement under Part 25 [18, 28]. Mr Justice Cusworth said, “The fact that other avenues have failed to produce a positive outcome cannot of it itself render the obtaining of such evidence necessary, without the identification of certain issues about which expert evidence is required.” [27]. Generally, there are concerns about the wide use of psychologists in family court proceedings who meet with parents or children once and then set about diagnosing or pathologising them with conditions that they have never been diagnosed with before. The over-pathologisation of victims of trauma incorrectly as having ‘personality disorders’, for example, has been written about Dr Jessica Taylor in her book Sexy, But Psycho.

The case raises serious concerns about the role of psychologists in presenting themselves as experts in ‘parental alienation’ within family court proceedings. In the Harm Report, “Women’s Aid Federation of England submitted that, in their view, there is a disparity of approach to expert testimony, with the courts allowing expert testimony on parental alienation but not allowing expert testimony on domestic abuse” (61).

CM v IP [2022] EWHC 2755 (Fam)

I first represented this next mother at an appeal hearing before Mrs Justice Morgan. The appellate court held that His Honour Judge Dodds was wrong in failing to implement participatory directions to assist the mother, a complainant of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour, to give her best evidence at a final hearing, pursuant to Part 3 FPR 2010 and PD3AA [2, Ground 1]. Second, the trial judge was wrong in refusing to determine the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour relevant to welfare decisions in respect of contact without proper consideration of PD12J, and the judge made no reference to the authority of Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic abuse: Finding of fact hearing) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 [2, Ground 2].

Mrs Justice Morgan accepted the appellant’s case on Ground 1, saying, “I am left sufficiently uneasy as to the effect of the procedural irregularity on the conclusions reached that I find the appeal must be allowed on Ground 1 because the irregularity makes it unjust” [34]. She allowed the appeal on Ground 2, noting, “So when I look back at the Cafcass report, and its characterisation of the allegations as "historic", and the learned judge's reliance on that in reaching the conclusions he does about whether, on the morning of 20 December, he should accede to the application made to review the applicability of PD12J to the situation before him, it follows that I am driven to the conclusion that he has fallen into error” [47]. The father was also ordered to pay the mother a contribution in costs of over £5,000.

DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child)) (Rev1) [2023] EWFC 180 (21 September 2023)

The case continued to a retrial before His Honour Judge Baker. The mother alleged domestic abuse by the father towards herself and, to a degree, the child, including patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour and one allegation of rape [5a]. The father denied the allegations, including that of rape, and asserted the mother engaged in ‘parental alienation’ [5b]. The mother’s allegations of rape and other forms of abuse, including to the child, were found to be true [102, 236, 264, 266e]. The judge noted the controversy of the term ‘parental alienation’:

“I am acutely conscious that the term parental alienation is controversial and debates around the issue often speak in terms of it being a ‘theory’ or ‘science’. As the higher courts have made clear it refers to something that is neither of those things and in fact is not a particularly useful short-hand for the necessity in some case to examine the factual matrix that underpins a child’s expressed wishes and feelings.” [55]

Contact was suspended at the conclusion after it was determined the child did not want or enjoy contact with the father [56]. When reviewing the father’s conduct as alleged by the mother, he did not dispute times when he caused the child pain by pulling his leg hair [36]. The father also referred to multiple incidents as ‘part of a game’ and the consequences ‘exaggerated’ by the mother [37]. The Judge stated in regard to the father’s behaviour towards the child, “It is difficult, for example, to characterise a parent pulling the hairs out of a child’s legs as anything other than objectively abusive behaviour, even if it is abuse at the lower end of the spectrum” (73).

The judge made a number of findings, including that the father engaged in rough play and behaviours he deemed humorous, such as flicking the child’s penis and making jokes, which although not sexual or physically harmful, were dismissive of the mother’s concerns [266 ai1]. The father also viewed incidents where the child experienced minor harm as character-building and, at times, amusing, which the mother viewed as antithetical to her more nurturing approach [266 ai2]. His behaviour, including causing physical pain through rough play, was excessive and disregarded both the mother’s disapproval and the emotional impact on the child [266 ai3]. Some of the father’s actions, like pulling the child’s leg hairs and pushing him, were inappropriate and could be considered abusive, contributing to the child’s negative perception of him [266 ai4]. The father also minimised financial support for the child, using this as leverage to influence contact arrangements [266 b]. In the parents’ relationship from 2012-2014, the father acted in crass and thoughtless ways, such as interfering with the mother’s social media and making derogatory hurtful remarks [266 ci1,2,3]. From 2015 to March 2017, the mother wanted a loving relationship and was significantly affected by the father’s disregard for her emotional needs [266 dii]. The father enjoyed having sex with the mother and persistently pursued sex, to the point of ignoring her clearly stated wish to stop sleeping together and her concerns about its effect on her wellbeing [266 dii,iii]. The judge said the overall effect of the father’s pursuit of sex was coercive and exploitative of the mother's vulnerabilities, pursued to gratify his sexual needs despite the mother’s clearly expressed concerns [266 dv]. In March of 2017 the father raped the mother [266 e]. In the context of that abuse, the father’s actions since have compounded and built upon her trauma [266 f].

DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child)) [2024] EWFC 12 (B)

“The overall picture, which now includes the father’s reflections upon the matters dealt with at the fact-finding hearing is one that leads me to conclude that the father’s continued involvement in the child’s life would be, for the foreseeable future, continued court-sanctioned abuse of the mother.” [68]

Finally, I represented the mother at a final welfare hearing. She applied to terminate the father’s parental responsibility, change the child’s surname to her surname only, implement a section 91(14) order, and for the father to pay her £30,000 in costs [70, 71, 79-81, 93, 149]. HHJ Baker stated that the treatment of the mother by the father represented both a direct and indirect threat of harm to the child [57]. The judge continued, “The direct threat originates (but does not end) in the possibility of a repetition of such behaviour which EMP may witness or become aware of. That possibility could of course be ameliorated by the circumstances of any contact (e.g. supervision or indirect-contact only) but the potential harm does not end with such measures.” [57] The judge referred to any contact with a rapist father as court-sanctioned abuse of the mother [68].

The judge further held the mother didn’t need to undergo a psychological assessment to prove the impact of rape and domestic abuse upon her; it would be obvious that rape would cause long-lasting psychological harm. This marks a significant step away from the pathologisation of rape victims, who ordinarily have to show (a) the harm caused to them by rape; (b) the harm that they would suffer if they had to promote contact with their rapist.

“DG raped KB. He treated her in the ways described in my fact-finding judgment. I am entirely satisfied that the father’s treatment of the mother during their ‘relationship’ has caused the mother significant, substantial and long-lasting psychological harm. I do not need a psychological assessment to point out the obvious. The findings alone would, it seems to me, give rise to the presumption of such harm and I have now had the opportunity of observing the mother over several hearings and an extended period of time. The father asserts that her manifestations of distress are an act. I do not agree.” [63]

“I am satisfied that if and when EMP becomes aware of the way in which his father has treated his mother it is overwhelmingly likely that that he would find it almost incomprehensible that it was considered in his welfare interests for him to retain use of the surname with which he was registered; (v) The surname maintains a connection to a father who caused significant harm to the mother. It would be a daily reminder to the mother and there is a real risk that in due course it would be a daily reminder to EMP;” [93 ii,v]

“The concept of PR is unlikely to be uppermost in EMP’s mind. However, in light of his view with respect to his father’s involvement in his life, it is clear that he is unlikely to think of his father as having responsibility for him. Indeed, the father’s actions (as set out in the fact-finding judgment) reveal the father taking insufficient responsibility for EMP, including financially. However, the key issues must relate to what EMP is likely to want his father to be able to do with respect to his PR? Would EMP want his father having the ability to exercise the rights that attend having PR?” [98]

Hannah Summers & Anor v Kristoffer Paul Arthur White & Ors [2024] EWFC 182

In another long-running private law children case, a mother was found by the family court to have been the victim of repeated rape and abuse by her ex-partner, the father of their daughter. The father had a history of male violence towards women. He was convicted for raping a ‘teenager’; he served four years of a 9 year sentence; and will remain on the sex offender’s register for life. Despite such grave findings, the Cafcass officer recommended unsupervised community contact, which was ordered by District Judge Harrison.

I represented the mother at an appeal hearing before His Honour Judge Greenfield. The mother appealed the order for direct contact and highlighted the risks that the father posed to her and the child. The mother’s appeal was allowed and the order for contact set aside. A children’s guardian was appointed (a new professional) and they warned that he posed a danger to women and children. The mother explained that she was concerned about Cafcass's contradictory assessments and the father’s attempts to control the mother and child through proceedings. On behalf of the mother, we submitted, “Cafcass’s position changed from pro-contact at all costs with a rapist father to not supporting any contact only once there was a successful appeal […] and proceedings became the subject of media scrutiny and a transparency order” (Submission by Traugott and Proudman in court documents. See The Bureau of Investigative Journalism).

Two journalists, Ms Hannah Summers and Ms Suzanne Martin applied to name the father publicly. The mother supported the application. The father and the children’s guardian opposed it. His Honour Judge Moradifor ruled it was in the public interest to name the father, Kristoffer Paul Arthur White. The case was reported in the media. Similar to the tenor of the father’s submissions in the cases above, Mr White consistently referred to false allegations made about him and accused her of “parental alienation”. We submitted for the mother, “The flavour and tenor of those allegations are deeply abusive.”

In conclusion, these cases illustrate the dangers of allowing ‘parental alienation,’ again, a concept with no clinical foundation, to overshadow serious allegations of domestic abuse in family court proceedings. The misuse of this pseudoscience in courtrooms diverts attention from genuine issues of abuse and enables abusers to manipulate the legal system to further harm their victims. In Re GB, the court rightly determined that ‘parental alienation’ is not a diagnosable condition and should be assessed by judges as a factual matter rather than through psychological assessments, yet in Re A and B, an “expert” in the subject was nearly appointed after an application by an abusive father, which was supported by the children’s guardian (a solicitor work who works for CAFCASS). We ought to be wary of so-called ‘experts’ who claim to specialise in ‘parental alienation’—their involvement could mislead the court and cause significant harm by legitimising a concept that lacks scientific validity.

Each of these cases exposes how allegations of ‘parental alienation’ can be weaponised by abusers to control and torment survivors. In several of these cases, the court found that the father’s claims of ‘parental alienation’ were a deliberate tactic to deflect from his abusive behaviours—the true reasons for children’s rejection, not any undue influence from mothers. Any child who has suffered domestic abuse is likely to be reluctant to have contact with an abusive parent. This pattern is further evident in cases like DG v KB, where prioritising unfounded ‘parental alienation’ claims over credible domestic abuse allegations undermines a child’s right to safety. Courts must focus on the totality of evidence, ensuring that abuse allegations are thoroughly investigated and treated with the seriousness they deserve rather than allowing obfuscation. If both of these mothers had not been successful in their appeals, they might have been found ‘guilty’ of ‘parental alienation’ by psychologists – and their allegations of rape would never have found the light of day. A child would have been forced into a relationship with their rapist parent.

To protect survivors and children, family courts should prioritise their safety by preventing abusers from exploiting legal proceedings with false claims of ‘parental alienation.’ The reliance on discredited ‘experts’ and the strategies employed by abusers, such as raising legal costs and engaging in victim-blaming, can unduly influence court decisions and continue the cycle of abuse. Strengthening protections for survivors, implementing comprehensive training programs for judges and legal practitioners, and removing the presumption of contact at all costs are essential steps.

This is explored further in November’s Family Law Issue, published on 12 NOV 2024