Family lawyers have welcomed judicial guidance on the ‘polarising’ issue of parental alienation designed to inform the courts and professionals on how such allegations should be dealt with.
The guidance, published by the Family Justice Council, states that considerable tension remains around the concept of ‘parental alienation’ that polarises opinion counterproductive to the best interests of children.
‘Given that “parental alienation syndrome” has no evidential basis, there are concerns that its use as a term, or any associated terms such as “alienating behaviours”, accords it misplaced legitimacy,’ the guidance says. ‘Whilst this is a concern, it remains an allegation which the family courts in England and Wales are increasingly asked to consider and act upon. The purpose of this guidance is to assist with navigation of the existing system, drawing together best practice in relation to the law as it stands against a backdrop of an increasing number of cases in which these allegations are raised.’
The court would need to be satisfied that three elements had been established to conclude that alienating behaviours had occurred: the child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in, a relationship with a parent or carer; the reluctance, resistance or refusal is not consequent on the actions of that parent towards the child or the other parent; and the other parent has engaged in behaviour that has directly or indirectly impacted the child.
Welcoming the guidance, Sital Fontenelle, head of family law at Kingsley Napley, said: ‘Determining why a child refuses to see a parent can be very complex, as it may stem from manipulation by one parent or a reaction to being a victim of domestic abuse, or indeed both. It can often take a lot of court time to grapple with these challenging issues.
‘Anything that helps bring consistency of approach and provides guidelines is therefore helpful - for the courts, for family lawyers and even for mediators as they look for family focused solutions.’
This article is now closed for comment.
11 Readers' comments