'In summary, in a situation of parental alienation the obligation on the court is to respond with exceptional diligence and take whatever effective measures are available. The situation calls for judicial resolve because the line of least resistance is likely to be less stressful for the child and for the court in the short term. But it does not represent a solution to the problem. Inaction will probably reinforce the position of the stronger party at the expense of the weaker party and the bar will be raised for the next attempt at intervention. Above all, the obligation on the court is to keep the child's medium to long term welfare at the forefront of its mind and wherever possible to uphold the child and parent's right to respect for family life before it is breached. In making its overall welfare decision the court must therefore be alert to early signs of alienation. What will amount to effective action will be a matter of judgement, but it is emphatically not necessary to wait for serious, worse still irreparable, harm to be done before appropriate action is taken. It is easier to conclude that decisive action was needed after it has become too late to take it.'
'It is clear that the child's expressed views are that she wishes to remain living with the mother (…) However, all of her views have to be assessed having regard to the fact that they are distorted by the prism of alienation.'
Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult: Transfer of Primary Care)
Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 1940 (Fam)
'the manipulation of the child by the other parent need not be malicious or even deliberate. It is the process that matters, not the motive. Where a child’s relationship with one parent is not working for no apparent good reason, signs of alienation may be found on the part of the other parent. These may include portraying the other parent in an unduly negative light to the child, suggesting that the other parent does not love the child, providing unnecessary reassurance to the child about time with the other parent, contacting the child excessively when with the other parent, and making unfounded allegations or insinuations, particularly of sexual abuse.'
'...the obligation on the court is to keep the child’s medium to long term welfare at the forefront of its mind and wherever possible to uphold the child and parent’s right to respect for family life before it is breached. In making its overall welfare decision the court must therefore be alert to early signs of alienation.'
Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult: Transfer of Primary Care)
Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 1940 (Fam)
'I accept that whilst there will be short-term harm and distress for the child as a result of moving to the father's care, underlying the current estrangement lie the foundations of a positive and beneficial relationship between the child and her father.’
Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult: Transfer of Primary Care)
Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 1940 (Fam)
'Having considered the authorities to which I have referred, and others, there is, in my view, a danger in placing too much emphasis on the phrase "last resort" used by Thorpe LJ and Coleridge J in Re: A. It is well established that the court cannot put a gloss on to the paramountcy principle in CA 1989, s 1. I do not read the judgments in Re: A as purporting to do that. The test is, and must always be, based on a comprehensive analysis of the child's welfare and a determination of where the welfare balance points in terms of outcome. It is important to note that the welfare provisions in CA 1989, s 1 are precisely the same provisions as those applying in public law children cases where a local authority may seek the court's authorisation to remove a child from parental care either to place them with another relative or in alternative care arrangements. Where, in private law proceedings, the choice, as here, is between care by one parent and care by another parent against whom there are no significant findings, one might anticipate that the threshold triggering a change of residence would, if anything, be lower than that justifying the permanent removal of a child from a family into foster care. Use of phrases such as "last resort" or "draconian" cannot and should not indicate a different or enhanced welfare test. What is required is for the judge to consider all the circumstances in the case that are relevant to the issue of welfare, consider those elements in the s 1(3) welfare check list which apply on the facts of the case and then, taking all those matters into account, determine which of the various options best meets the child's welfare needs.'
'CA 1989 s 1(4)(a) requires the court to have regard to "the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding)."
'Whilst it is a fundamental principle, applicable to every case, that the child who is the subject of the proceedings shall be heard, the manner and the degree to which the child is heard will vary from case to case. Further, it is important to bear in mind that each element in the welfare checklist is subject to the overarching requirement in CA 1989, s 1(1) that the welfare of the child must be the court's paramount consideration.'
Neutral Citation Number: [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)
Case No: FA-2022-00227
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Date: 21 February 2023
Before: SIR ANDREW McFARLANE (PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION)
Re C (‘Parental Alienation’; Instruction of Expert)
Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam)
Case No. FD19P00058
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
Date: 24 February 2021
Before: MR JUSTICE KEEHAN
A and B (Parental Alienation: No.1, No.2, No.3 and No.4)
Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 1940 (Fam)
Case No: ZC19P00137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FAMILY DIVISION
Date: 15 July 2020
B e f o r e : MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS
Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult: Transfer of Primary Care)
Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 568
Case No: B4/2020/0318IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL FAMILY COURT
HHJ Meston QCZC19P00137
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 29 April 2020
Before: LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE, LADY JUSTICE KING and LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult)
Application no. 23641/17
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Strasbourg
Date: 29 January 2020
Case of Pisică v. the Republic of Moldova
Art 8 • Respect for family life • Failure to enforce final judgment awarding mother custody • Children’s alienation from their mother • Failure to act with requisite diligence • Positive obligations