A and B (Children: ‘Parental Alienation’) (No. 5), Re
[2023] EWHC 1864 (Fam)
MT v FT
18 March 2024
[2024] EWFC 186 (B)
Family Court
Two teens hate their mom. The judge decided the dad made them feel that way (parental alienation). Mom can't get their address, but dad has to tell her if something big happens (like moving). The dad's attempts to stop mom from contacting the court failed. The judge said the dad's actions were harmful to the kids and their relationship with their mom.
Key Facts
- •Two teenagers, HT (17) and RT (15), have completely rejected their mother, MP (formerly MT).
- •The mother applied for the court to order the father, FT, to provide a correspondence address and the daughter's school to liaise with her.
- •The parents separated in July 2019, leading to a series of court proceedings.
- •A Cafcass report in 2019 raised concerns about potential parental alienation by the father.
- •A subsequent psychological assessment in 2020 did not definitively conclude parental alienation.
- •A 2020 consent order restricted the mother's contact with the children.
- •The mother's current application is not for direct contact, but for information about the children's whereabouts and well-being.
- •The father alleges the mother breached the 2020 order through numerous contacts.
- •The children express significant fear and distress towards their mother, claiming harassment and stalking.
- •The court considers evidence from Cafcass reports (2019 and 2023), expert reports, and oral evidence from the parents and Cafcass officer.
Legal Principles
A child's welfare is the paramount consideration in upbringing decisions.
Children Act 1989, section 1
The court considers factors in s.1(3) of the Children Act 1989, including the child's wishes and feelings, needs, and risk of harm.
Children Act 1989, section 1(3)
The burden of proof is on the party asserting facts, and the standard is the balance of probabilities.
The court must give reasons for departing from expert opinions.
Parental alienation is not a diagnosable syndrome but a question of fact to be determined by the court based on specific behaviours and their impact.
Re C ([2023] EWHC 345 (Fam))
Outcomes
The mother's application for disclosure of the children's address and school is refused.
This would likely cause further distress and harm, and not be in the children's best interests.
The father is ordered to inform the mother of significant life events concerning the children.
To maintain a minimal level of indirect contact, balancing the children's wishes with their long-term welfare.
The father's application for an order under s.91(14) (limiting further applications) is refused.
The mother's applications have been reasonable, and the order would send the wrong message.
The father's application for enforcement and a non-molestation order are dismissed.
The mother has not breached the order, and there is no evidence the father or children need protection from her.
The mother's application to consult an expert is allowed, limited to reviewing case papers for advice.
To enable the mother to seek professional guidance without further court involvement.
The court finds that the father's actions constitute parental alienation.
Based on evidence of coercive control, false narratives, and consistent efforts to prevent the mother from having a relationship with the children.