“Alienating Behaviours” Guidelines

In December 2024 the Family Justice Council released it’s guidelines on “alienating behaviours”¹. It is great that the guidelines accept that the dynamic in which one parent psychologically controls/manipulates their child to reject a parent exists. Any Psychologist who has experience of working with families who are trained and are knowledgeable in personality disorders, attachment, family systems and trauma should know this.

It is also good that the Judiciary intend to take steps to identify these cases and there is some acceptance that a child may have 2 parents behaving in problematic ways. It cannot be a simple black and white question as to if domestic abuse is present or not.

The guidelines reinforce that an expert witness’ “…overriding duty is to the Court and to be impartial in their evidence”. This may stop organisations representing Clinical Psychologists from aligning with the Domestic Abuse lobby and ignoring the voices of victims that do not fit their ideology as happened in Re. C (‘Parental Alienation’) [2023]².

With the introduction of new guidelines, the Judiciary had a real opportunity to provide service users who end up in court, with a mental health solution that could benefit the entire family, improve outcomes for children and break the cycle of trauma passed from parent to child. Right to Love don’t feel the guidelines took this opportunity.

If you’re in family court, having tried to work it out on your own for months or years, chances are at least one of the parents is using a severely maladaptive attachment strategy. Before publishing these guidelines, the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) chose not to research and pilot different assessment models which could provide a solution. These models included Dr Childress’ diagnostic model³ and solution⁴ for treatment in family courts and the Dynamic Maturational Model of Attachment and Adaptation⁵. Research and pilots could also have included models championed by the Domestic Abuse lobby but didn’t.

The Judiciary and MOJ decided not to look at the size of the problem posed by parents using a maladaptive attachment strategy or having a personality disorder in cases where children have emotionally cutoff (rejected) their parent. So they missed the opportunity to build a solution on that basis.

Fact finding and assessment of families early on, with a treatment plan for all cases with recommendations made on the basis of risks posed, would quickly show the family dynamics and what was needed to support parents to change. Helping to reduced conflict around children faster and enabling monitoring of outcomes. They have chosen not to do that.

There may be reasons for this, for example, concern about up front cost without considering down stream benefits, lack of availability and capability of required professionals to assess and support families, political pressure by vested interests for any solution that doesn’t lead to a mother retaining residence, concerns from psychologists that diagnosis might pathologies a parent etc. Whatever the reason, the guidelines mean cases will continue along the same legal and argumentative path they do today, costing family members dearly in time, money and health.

The guidelines give cause for worry in a number of other areas:

There is no mention of the ability to diagnose child or partner psychological abuse
- Whilst it’s true “Parental Alienation” cannot be diagnosed the issue of concern is actually child or partner psychological abuse, and that can be diagnosed.
- These guidelines provide further proof of why using the term “Parental Alienation” is disabling solution and why Right to Love will continue not to use the term.
Parents are unable to prove child or partner psychological abuse without assessment by a Clinical Psychologist.
- The guidelines explain the burden of proof is on the person alleging “alienating behaviours”.
- For the target parent, the concern is not the behaviours themselves but the emotional harm they cause them and their child.
- If the Judiciary refuse psychological assessment, how do you prove that psychological harm is a factor?
- Judges aren’t trained in psychological abuse, Cafcass Family Court Advisors are not trained in psychological abuse, so how are they qualified to evaluate a parents concerns?
The guidelines suggest if contact between parent and child is still taking place, that “alienating behaviours” are unlikely to be a factor.
- This completely underestimates the impacts of psychological control on victims over time.
- Psychologically controlling behaviours can exist well before children begin to adapt to the controlling parents needs and full emotional cutoff occurs.
- Parents targeted for rejection will pick up on their ex’s’ behaviour way before their child does.
- This will lead to anger and conflict which if left untreated, will escalate over time and eventually lead to a full emotional cutoff as the child begins to close their feelings down.
- Far better to deal with it in early stages as soon as a parent raises concerns about any behaviours they are being subjected to. It is unlikely the psychologically controlling parent will stop with just the target parent.
It is suggested psychological control to manipulate a child to reject a parent is rare.
- In making this claim, the Judiciary appear to have misinterpreted research from the “Parental Alienation” community⁷.
- It is true that an emotional cutoff in a child, in either the general population or in public law cases brought by the local authority, is rare. So rare in fact, that Right to Love would suggest this is a “red flag” that a psychological assessment should be conducted in every case.
- However, Right to Love believe the frequency is significantly higher in private law cases. The actual prevalence in private law cases has not been researched. Nor can it be while courts fail to provide a diagnostic solution and record outcomes.
- The rate of emotional cutoff is not the same thing as the frequency of “alienating behaviours”. The research quoted by the Judiciary actually shows that 36.5% of parents reported “alienating behaviours” were used against them and they did not use them against their ex, and 59.1% reported that both they and their ex had used “alienating behaviours”. That is not rare and it doesn’t mean it’s not damaging⁷.
The child’s voice continues to have great influence, which in the case of psychological control, risks the child being made the decision maker. Highly dangerous when a child cannot fully comprehend what it will mean for their development and future outcomes. It’s important to hear a child’s voice it can help identify abuse but it should not override cognitive information that can be found through assessment and analysis of behaviour in timelines and during specific incidents. The perils of listening to a child’s voice as the basis for decision making are shown in the Systemic Failure in the death of Sara Sharif. Lessons must be learned.
Like the concept of “parental alienation” new words are being used that don’t exist in current psychological literature. “alienating behaviours”, “Reluctance, Resistance and Refusal” what’s next “Child and Mother Sabotage”, “Father and Child Sabotage”? What is the research basis of these terms? Where in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or International Classification of Diseases do they appear?
Cases where a child is reluctant or resisting time with a parent would still stay with a magistrate judge. Escalated up with all the filters that humans possess as a result of their own attachment strategies.

For now, these are the guidelines parents, family members, lawyers and family court professionals will need to follow. It is clear parents representing themselves, and lawyers will need to consider carefully:

How to ensure they highlight concern about “alienating behaviours” and evidence it immediately on application.
How they request assessment and provision of a treatment plan by an expert witness immediately to ensure the right interventions are put in place for their family in order to avoid further harm.

Right to Love will be refining tips for parents and lawyers on how to evidence child psychological abuse but for now, you may find useful information on preparing timelines for discussions with Cafcass and the Judiciary here.

Only time will tell how these guidelines will change outcomes for families. This can only be clear if there is enough monitoring of outcomes, feedback loops and reviews. All this should be transparent to the public.

References: