Letters roundup: 24 November 2023

Parental alienation is not ‘disproven’

I refer to Rachel Rothwell’s article ‘Unhappy families’ (17 November). Family court advocate Jenny Beck states that ‘Parental alienation has been disproven as a psychological theory’. I’m surprised Ms Beck was not asked to produce documented evidence to back up this statement.

Cafcass states: ‘While there is no single definition, we recognise parental alienation as when a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent… While alienation can be demonstrated solely by one parent, it is often a combination of child and adult behaviours and attitudes, with both parents playing a role, that lead to the child rejecting or resisting spending time with one parent … a parent constantly badmouthing or belittling the other; limiting contact; forbidding discussion about them; creating the impression that the other parent dislikes or does not love the child … These tactics can foster a false belief that the alienated parent is dangerous or unworthy.’

Karen Woodall from Family Separation Clinic reports that protagonists often divide the parties into ‘all good’ and ‘all bad’. She gives as an example: ‘I hate being with Mummy because she makes me eat broccoli.’  This progresses to: ‘Mummy makes me eat broccoli because she knows I hate it.’ Then: ‘Mummy makes me eat broccoli because she knows it makes me ill.’ To: ‘Mummy is trying to kill me by making me eat broccoli.’

In Psychology Today, psychologist Edward Kruk wrote: ‘As a form of child maltreatment, parental alienation is a serious child protection matter as it undermines a basic principle of social justice for children: the right to know and be cared for by both parents.’

Disproven?  By whom?

Anthony Melnikoff

Retired presiding magistrate, Barnet, Herts

Mind the SLAPP

Paul Rogerson expresses incredulity about the Society of Media Lawyers’ statement that there is a ‘complete absence of credible evidence’ that SLAPPs are a problem (Leader, 10 November). Unfortunately, the practice of solicitors acting as hired guns in defamation and malicious falsehood claims without substance goes far wider than suppressing legitimate journalism.

I have acted for non-media clients subject to claims without any merit which were advanced by well-known firms. Three were trade unions sued by employers with whom they had been involved in industrial disputes. These were collateral attacks aimed at putting additional pressure on the unions or to teach them a lesson. All were dropped when the glaring failures to comply with the defamation protocol were pointed out.

The SRA’s Guidance on Conduct in Disputes identifies the practice of solicitors ‘making excessive or meritless claims, aggressive and intimidating tactics’. Those acting for clients on the receiving end should consider referring to this when responding and making complaints to the SRA, and advising their clients to do so.

Chris Donnison

Sheffield