New Family Court Guidance: Prioritising Domestic Abuse Over Parental Alienation Claim

Family courts in England and Wales are undergoing a pivotal shift in how they approach Private Law disputes, relating to arrangements for children. New guidance from the Family Justice Council (FJC) places domestic abuse allegations at the forefront of decision-making, calling for reduced emphasis on claims of parental alienation. This change reflects growing concerns over the misuse of discredited concepts and aims to better protect vulnerable children and families.

Understanding the Guidance

In private law cases, separated parents often find themselves embroiled in disputes over suitable and appropriate arrangements for their child(ren). These cases frequently feature allegations of abuse alongside counterclaims of parental alienation, where one parent accuses the other of manipulating the child against them.

The FJC’s report highlights that the concept of parental alienation syndrome lacks credible

research support and has been internationally discredited as a pseudoscience. While the

guidance acknowledges that alienating behaviours can occur, it emphasises that such cases

are rare and must be rigorously examined.

In contrast, domestic abuse is a crime with significant implications for victims, including children. The report notes that more than half of private law cases involving children feature allegations of domestic abuse, underscoring the need for courts to prioritise these claims when making decisions in relation to arrangements for children.

Legal and Psychological Implications

The guidance warns against treating domestic abuse allegations and parental alienation claims as equivalent. A concerning trend has emerged where parents accused of abuse, counter with claims of parental alienation. These claims can complicate proceedings, divert attention from serious allegations, and prolong the court process, often to the detriment of children.

Courts are advised to focus on evidence and avoid reliance on the disputed parental alienation syndrome. Psychological assessments should also be carefully scrutinised to ensure they provide reliable insights without undermining the gravity of abuse allegations.

Case in Point: Lessons from the High Court

The complexities of these issues were highlighted in a recent High Court case, P v M & Ors [2023] EWFC 254, presided over by Mrs Justice Judd. The case involved parents who

separated in 2017, with the mother alleging abuse and initially obtaining a non-molestation order against the father.

Three years later, the father claimed the mother had alienated their children from him, citing a

psychologist’s assessment as evidence. The mother feared losing her children despite

maintaining that her actions were protective rather than manipulative. Ultimately, the court ruled in her favour, but the prolonged legal battle underscores how allegations of parental alienation can complicate cases involving domestic abuse.

The Guidance reflects recent developments in case-law, and in particular the approach to the

use of experts in cases of alleged parental alienation in Re C (‘Parental Alienation’; Instruction

of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam). In that case, the President addresses this issue at [103]:

“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.’ 

It is not the purpose of this judgment to go further into the topic of alienation. 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.” 

This point is reiterated again in Re GB (Part 25 Application: Parental Alienation) [2023] EWFC 150.

The Guidance contains five ‘Guidance Notes’, dealing with Case Management, the Voice of the Child, Welfare Decisions where Findings of Alienating Behaviours have been made,

Understanding Reluctance, Resistance, Refusal and Psychological Manipulation and the Use of Experts.

Attachment, affinity and alignment (‘AAA’) – reasons why children may favour one parent

over another, or reject a parent, which are typical emotional responses to parenting

experiences and not the result of psychological manipulation by a parent.

 Appropriate justified rejection (‘AJR’) – situation where a child’s rejection of a parent is

an understandable response to that parent’s behaviour towards the child and/or the

other parent.

Alienating Behaviours (‘AB’) – psychologically manipulative behaviours, intended or

otherwise, by a parent towards a child which have resulted in the child’s reluctance,

resistance or refusal to spend time with the other parent. [This term is capitalised

throughout the guidance to refer to this definition.

 Protective behaviours (‘PB’) – behaviours by a parent towards a child in order to protect

the child from exposure to abuse by the other parent, or from suffering harm (or greater

harm) as a consequence of the other parent’s abuse.



Reluctance, resistance or refusal (‘RRR’) – behaviours by a child concerning their

relationship with, or spending time with, a parent, which may have a variety of potential

cause

Reactions and Legal Implications

The FJC’s guidance has received widespread support from legal professionals and advocacy

groups. Lucy Reed KC of the Transparency Project noted that the recommendations could

prevent misuse of alienation claims to silence survivors of domestic abuse.

Women’s Aid, a leading charity, praised the guidance for acknowledging children as survivors of abuse under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, the organisation also expressed concerns about gaps in the guidance, including insufficient emphasis on child sexual abuse and the broader dynamics of domestic abuse.

Sophie Francis-Cansfield, Head of Policy at Women’s Aid, said:

“Allegations of alienation are used in the family courts to rebut, obscure, and

distract from allegations of domestic abuse, with survivors being accused of

‘alienating’ when they raise concerns over the safety of contact between a

perpetrator and a child, or when a child has concerns or fear about attending

contact. The wishes, and safety, of children are often overlooked family court

proceedings, despite the fact that those who have been in a domestic abuse setting

are considered survivors in their own right under the Domestic Abuse Act (2021).

Women’s Aid is pleased to see that in guidance published today, The Family

Justice Council (FJC) have outlined that a child’s resistance or refusal to attend

contact is not proof of alienation, and we welcome that the guidance notes reason,

including domestic abuse, for why children might choose to avoid contact.

While the guidance from the FJC allows for increased agency of children who have

experienced abuse and may not wish to have contact with the perpetrator, it has

missed an opportunity to provide more information on the dynamics of these

situations and the risks that both adults and children surviving domestic abuse face.

An improved understanding of the context in which domestic abuse exists, would

allow for better recognition of abuse allegations and ensure appropriate responses,

centring the welfare of children in these proceedings.

While the guidance is a positive step in the right direction, we are concerned that it

is not sufficiently child-centred, and that the wishes of children will continue to be

overlooked in family court proceedings. It is also concerning that the guidance

makes no reference to child sexual abuse.”

The guidance also cautions against over-reliance on psychological assessments in cases

involving parental alienation claims. Courts are encouraged to scrutinise evidence carefully,

ensuring that decisions are informed by verifiable facts rather than speculative theories.

Balancing Child Welfare and Parental Rights

While the guidance represents progress, critics argue it could do more to prioritise children’s

perspectives. Advocacy groups have highlighted gaps, such as the lack of emphasis on child

sexual abuse or broader understanding of abuse dynamics.

Nonetheless, the guidance marks a critical step towards fairer family court proceedings. By

prioritising domestic abuse allegations, it aims to reduce harm to children and prevent prolonged legal conflicts that can fracture families.

The Road Ahead

The new guidance represents a vital step in reforming family court proceedings. While gaps

remain in addressing the full scope of domestic abuse dynamics, the emphasis on prioritising

abuse allegations over unproven claims of parental alienation sets a clearer path forward.

As the guidance is implemented, it is hoped that family courts will become more equipped to

safeguard children and families, delivering outcomes that are fair, evidence-based, and

protective of the most vulnerable.

If you're seeking expert solicitors with a focus on family law, Hogans Solicitors is here to help. Our firm boasts one of the largest teams of Children Law Accredited specialists in the North West. For more information, please get in touch.