K (Children: Alienating Behaviour), Re
[2024] EWFC 216 (B)
K v Y
30 November 2023
[2023] EWFC 262 (B)
Family Court
Two parents fought in court for two years about where their child Z should live and go to school. The judge listened to everyone, especially the child, and decided Z should live with both parents but spend specific times with each, to keep things fair. The judge said that both parents need to work better together and communicate, so Z can have a good relationship with both of them.
Key Facts
- •Dispute between parents K and Y regarding child arrangements for their child Z.
- •Cross-applications for Child Arrangements Orders, Specific Issue Orders, and Prohibited Steps Orders.
- •Proceedings lasted over two years, involving Section 7 reports and addendum reports.
- •Allegation of parental alienation by Y against K.
- •Z's wishes and feelings are central to the case.
- •Disputes regarding secondary school choice and subsequent events leading to Z living primarily with K.
Legal Principles
Child's welfare is paramount.
Children Act 1989, s.1(3)
Presumption of parental involvement in child's life furthering welfare.
Children Act 1989, s.1(2A)
Parental responsibility encompasses duties to the child, not just the court.
Re H-B (Contact) [2015] EWCA Civ 389
Parents share responsibility in addressing difficulties in contact, prioritizing child's needs.
Re W (Direct Contact) [2012] EWCA Civ 999
Assessing credibility involves more than demeanor; contemporary documents are important.
Lancashire CC v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)
A lie by a witness can support a positive allegation if certain conditions are met (Lucas test).
H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136
Focus on alienating behavior, not just the label 'parental alienation'.
Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)
Court's function is to make factual determinations for welfare decisions, not delegate to experts.
AM v RF [2023] EWFC 150
Outcomes
Z to live with both parents, with a detailed schedule for time with each parent.
Balances Z's wishes with the need for a consistent relationship with both parents; avoids disrupting Z's education and emotional wellbeing.
Z to remain at her current school.
Changing schools would be emotionally harmful and disruptive to her education.
Application for Prohibited Steps Order dismissed.
No evidence of K planning to permanently remove Z from the jurisdiction.
Passport arrangements detailed, promoting communication and shared responsibility.
Addresses concerns about international travel without creating unnecessary restrictions.
Application for Family Assistance Order dismissed.
Unclear practical benefits and potential for further intrusion into Z's life.