Is “Parental Alienation” Still Used in the Family Court?

Parents, campaign groups and some professionals continue to use the expression “parental alienation”. It is also a phrase that many parents search for online when a child has unexpectedly rejected them or when contact has broken down.

However, the current family justice approach is not to treat parental alienation as a medical or psychological diagnosis. The Family Justice Council has stated that so-called “parental alienation syndrome” has no evidential basis. The proper focus is on the specific behaviour alleged, whether that behaviour has been proved, and what impact it has had on the individual child.

Cafcass has similarly stated that it does not use or refer to the term “parental alienation” where it is framed as a condition or syndrome. Instead, Cafcass Family Court Advisers are expected to explore the range of reasons why a child may not want to spend time with a parent and to assess the impact of adult behaviour on the child.

What Are Alienating Behaviours?

The phrase alienating behaviours refers to conduct by a parent or other adult that psychologically manipulates a child and contributes to the child becoming reluctant, resistant or unwilling to have a relationship with another parent.

The Family Justice Council guidance identifies three elements that must be established before a court can properly conclude that alienating behaviours have occurred:

1. The child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent.
2. The child’s response is not caused by the conduct of the parent seeking the relationship.
3. The other parent has engaged in behaviour that has caused the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal.

This is an important safeguard. A parent cannot simply state that they have been alienated and expect the court to accept the allegation. The court must consider whether the child has a legitimate reason for their position and whether the alleged behaviour is actually supported by evidence.

Why Might a Child Refuse to See a Parent?

There is no single explanation that applies to every child. A child may resist or refuse time with a parent for several different reasons, and more than one reason may be operating at the same time.

The court may need to consider whether the child’s position is connected to:

• domestic abuse, including controlling or coercive behaviour;
• fear, distress or a previous harmful experience;
• the parenting behaviour of the parent seeking contact;
• a child’s justified rejection of a parent;
• harmful conflict between the adults;
• the child feeling responsible for protecting one parent;
• pressure, influence or psychological manipulation by a parent;
• the child’s age, maturity, wishes and feelings;
• practical changes, such as a long interruption in contact or unfamiliarity;
• a combination of several different factors.

The court should not assume that a child who refuses contact has been manipulated. Equally, the court should not assume that every expression of reluctance is entirely independent of adult influence. The task is to understand the child’s circumstances carefully and fairly.

The Difference Between Domestic Abuse, Harmful Conflict and Alienating Behaviours

These concepts are not interchangeable. It is important to distinguish them because the court’s response may be very different depending on the findings made.

What Does the Law Say?

Controlling or Coercive Behaviour and a Child’s Relationship with a Parent

Controlling or coercive behaviour may be relevant where one parent uses the child, child arrangements or family court proceedings as part of a wider pattern of abuse. It may also be relevant where a child has seen, heard or experienced the effects of abuse and is therefore fearful, protective of a parent or unwilling to spend time with the alleged perpetrator.

However, not every difficult co-parenting relationship amounts to domestic abuse. Not every disagreement about contact is coercive control. Not every allegation of alienating behaviour is a disguised allegation of domestic abuse, and not every allegation of domestic abuse is evidence of alienating behaviour.

The court must identify the factual allegations, determine whether findings are required and then decide what those findings mean for the child’s welfare.

What Evidence May Help the Court?

Family court cases are not decided by the number of times a parent repeats an allegation. They are decided by evidence, findings and an assessment of the child’s welfare.

Questions the Court May Need to Answer

• What is the child saying, and how has the child’s position been obtained and understood?
• What was the nature of the child’s previous relationship with the parent?
• Has the child experienced or been affected by domestic abuse?
• Has the parent seeking contact behaved in a way that explains the child’s response?
• Is the child’s position consistent over time and across different settings?
• Is there evidence that the child has been exposed to adult information or pressure?
• Has either parent failed to support a safe relationship with the other parent?
• Is a fact-finding hearing required before welfare decisions can be made?
• What arrangements, if any, can be made safely and in the child’s best interests?

The Child’s Wishes and Feelings

A child’s wishes and feelings are an important part of the welfare checklist, but they are not the only factor. The weight given to them will depend on the child’s age, understanding, circumstances and the way in which those wishes and feelings have been formed.

The court must avoid two opposite errors:

• ignoring a child’s expressed fears or objections because an adult alleges alienation; and
• assuming that the child’s expressed position must determine the outcome without considering the surrounding evidence.

Children should be listened to carefully. They should not be interrogated, recruited into adult disputes or made to feel responsible for deciding the outcome of court proceedings.

Recent Judicial Guidance: Re Y

In February 2026, the President of the Family Division handed down judgment in Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38.

The judgment reinforces the need for courts to follow the Family Justice Council guidance and to exercise care before permitting expert evidence in cases involving alleged alienating behaviours. The court, not an expert, is responsible for deciding the factual allegations. Expert evidence should not be used as a substitute for judicial fact-finding.

The judgment is particularly important for litigants in person who may be encouraged to rely on an unregulated “alienation expert” or to believe that an expert can diagnose the reason why a child is refusing contact. That is not the modern approach.

Common Mistakes in Cases Where a Child Refuses Contact

1. Treating the label as the evidence

Saying “parental alienation” does not establish what happened. The court needs to understand the specific acts alleged and the effect on the child.

2. Ignoring allegations of domestic abuse

A parent who dismisses all allegations as alienation may appear unwilling to engage with the child’s experiences or with legitimate safeguarding concerns.

3. Assuming refusal must be justified

A child’s refusal should be taken seriously, but the court may still need to consider whether the child has been exposed to pressure, adult narratives or harmful influence.

4. Pressuring the child to resume contact

Demands, emotional appeals, repeated messages or attempts to make the child feel guilty may damage the relationship further and may be viewed as contrary to the child’s welfare.

5. Using adult-focused language

The court is not deciding which parent has been treated more unfairly. It is deciding what outcome best protects and promotes the child’s welfare.

6. Submitting excessive, unstructured evidence

A large volume of messages, recordings and screenshots may obscure the strongest evidence. A focused chronology and properly organised documents are usually more effective.

How to Present a Child-Focused Case

Whether you are the parent seeking to restore contact or the parent raising concerns about contact, your case should remain focused on the child.

A well-prepared case may include:

• a concise chronology of significant events;
• a schedule of allegations where directed by the court;
• a clear response to allegations made against you;
• relevant messages, emails, school records or professional records;
• a careful analysis of any Cafcass safeguarding letter or section 7 report;
• specific examples of the impact on the child;
• a realistic proposal for safe, child-focused arrangements;
• consideration of whether indirect, supported or supervised contact may be appropriate;
• a willingness to reflect on your own conduct and make changes where necessary.

Can a Damaged Parent-Child Relationship Be Repaired?

In some cases, a relationship can be rebuilt. The appropriate approach will depend on the child’s experiences, the findings made by the court, the level of risk and the child’s individual needs.

Repair should not mean forcing a child to accept an adult narrative or requiring the child to resume contact before it is safe. It may involve patience, careful communication, professional support, reduced conflict and arrangements that allow trust to develop gradually.

A parent seeking to rebuild a relationship should consider whether their own behaviour may need to change. A parent who is caring for a child should consider whether they are supporting the child’s safe relationship with the other parent, where that is consistent with the child’s welfare.

When to Seek Support

Cases involving a child’s refusal to see a parent can become complex very quickly. They may involve allegations of domestic abuse, controlling or coercive behaviour, harmful conflict, safeguarding concerns, Cafcass recommendations, applications for enforcement or requests for a fact-finding hearing.

Early preparation can make a significant difference. A litigant in person may benefit from support with identifying the real issues, organising evidence, preparing a chronology, responding to a section 7 report and presenting a clear, child-focused position to the court.