Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law

ISSN: 0964-9069 (Print) 1469-9621 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsf20

A genealogy of hostility: parental alienation in

England and Wales

Adrienne Barnett

To cite this article: Adrienne Barnett (2020) A genealogy of hostility: parental alienation
in England and Wales, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 42:1, 18-29, DOI:
10.1080/09649069.2019.1701921

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1701921

Published online: 07 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 690

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsf20
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW
2020, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 18–29
https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2019.1701921

A genealogy of hostility: parental alienation in England and

Wales
Adrienne Barnett
Brunel Law School, Brunel University London, London, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article explores the emergence and development of paren- Parental alienation; domestic
tal alienation (PA) in England and Wales. It considers the back- abuse; child arrangement
ground into which PA first appeared in private law proceedings proceedings
concerning children in England and Wales, and examines how it
progressed in the case law through the changing political and
discursive context of private family law from 2000 to the end of
March 2019. A clear pattern emerged of, initially, parental alie-
nation syndrome and subsequently PA being raised in family
proceedings and in political and popular arenas in response to
concerns about and measures to address domestic abuse. The
case law revealed a high incidence of domestic abuse perpe-
trated by parents (principally fathers) who were claiming that
the resident parents (principally mothers) had alienated the
children against them, which raises questions about the pur-
pose of PA. More recently, a PA ‘industry’ appears to have
amassed comprising experts, therapists and lawyers, advocating
transfers of children’s care from ‘alienating’ mothers to non-
resident fathers, as well as PA therapy for children and parents.
While PA has had a chequered history and is not without its
critics, it has become part of the discursive repertoire of current
family law, with increasingly harsh consequences for women
and children.

Introduction
This article explores the emergence and development of parental alienation (PA) in
England and Wales and the extent to which PA has become embedded in current family
law. PA did not, of course, emerge into a vacuum. The social, political and discursive
context structured and underpinned how and why PA emerged and subsequently
progressed, and the extent to which it gained acceptance. This article will consider,
firstly, the background into which PA first materialised in private law children proceed-
ings in England and Wales. It will then explore how PA progressed in the case law
through the changing political and discursive context of private family law from 2000,
when PAS first appeared in reported judgments, to the end of March 2019. This analysis
reveals that PA has become part of the discursive repertoire of current family law, with
increasingly harsh consequences for women and children.

CONTACT Adrienne Barnett Adrienne.Barnett@brunel.ac.uk

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 19

Social, political and historical background

PA is underpinned by, and premised on, a particular dominant construction of children’s
welfare, that constitutes the involvement of fathers in post-separation families as over-
whelmingly important for children’s emotional, psychological and developmental wel-
fare. The courts, particularly since the enactment of the Children Act (1989), have
interpreted the welfare principle almost solely in terms of the child’s ‘need’ to maintain
contact with non-resident parents. This gave rise to the dominant feminine subjectivity
of the ‘implacably hostile mother’ who, through selfishness and unreasonableness,
damages her child by stubbornly refusing to allow contact with the father (Rhoades
2002). These developments resonate internationally, as the other contributions to this
Special Issue demonstrate.
The fathers’ rights movement (FRM), and in particular Families Need Fathers (FNF),
has played a key role in promoting PA in England and Wales and the ‘hostile mother’
discourses that underpin it, instigated, it is suggested, by two factors. The move towards
greater autonomy rights for children, embodied in Section 1 of the Children Act (1989),
meant that children’s wishes and feelings were taken more seriously and courts were more
reluctant to enforce contact orders on resistant children. However, it is suggested that the
immediate impetus in the 1990s was that the judiciary finally woke up to domestic abuse.
Ground-breaking research by Hester and Radford (1996) brought to the attention of
courts and policymakers the harmful effects on children of the courts’ and professionals’
promotion of contact between children and violent parents. In 2000 the Court of Appeal
delivered its seminal judgment in Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2
FLR 334. In each of these combined appeals, the fathers had perpetrated severe physical
violence on the mothers and contact had been denied or restricted. The Court of Appeal
endorsed a court-ordered report by Drs Sturge and Glaser (2000, p. 624) which empha-
sised that ‘[d]omestic violence involves a very serious and significant failure in parenting’.
In dismissing all four appeals, the Court of Appeal laid down novel guidance, including
a requirement for findings of fact to be made on disputed allegations of domestic violence
which might be relevant to outcomes. Similar guidance was published by the Lord
Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law, Children Act Sub-Committee (2000). It is
no coincidence, it is suggested, that PA, in its initial form of parental alienation syndrome
(PAS), emerged when the courts recognised domestic violence as a factor militating
against contact.

Review of the PA case law

Methodology
A total of 40 cases (comprised in 54 judgments) were reviewed in which PA/PAS was
raised or referred to. These were identified in Family Law Reports and on BAILII, and
a few unreported judgments were identified in Casemine. The reported cases cannot
provide a representative sample of all such cases. Nevertheless, they provide us with some
insight into the way in which some trial judges respond to PA and into the attitudes and
responses of the higher courts. The discussion that follows explores how PA developed,
the extent to which it gained acceptance, and its consequences if accepted.
20 A. BARNETT

PAS enters the legal system: 2000 – 2002

Six cases referring to PAS were identified in this period. All involved applications by
fathers, for contact in four cases and shared residence in two, who were claiming that the
children were victims of PAS at the hands of the mothers. None were successful in
achieving the orders sought, and in all but one, the court was sceptical about PAS. In at
least four of the cases the mothers sustained domestic abuse at the hands of the fathers.
The first reported case in which PAS was raised was Re L itself. The father in M had
relied on a report by Dr Lowenstein, a PAS ‘expert’, who wrote prolifically about PAS and
was the favoured expert of the FRM. He ‘diagnosed’ PAS and recommended therapy, to
be conducted by himself. Sturge and Glaser (2000) disputed the authenticity of PAS as it
was not recognised in the American or international classifications of disorders or by UK
child mental health systems. The Court of Appeal firmly adopted this opinion, which had
the effect of ‘killing off’ any subsequent attempts to gain recognition in the courts for
PAS. One of the difficulties in gaining acceptance for PAS in this case was the expert
himself. According to King (2002, p. 617), in England and Wales, unlike the USA, ‘it is
not the concept that is to be tested, but the experts themselves. In other words, the
distinction between reliable and unreliable is personalized’. Both the trial judge and the
Court of Appeal were dubious about the expertise of Dr Lowenstein, describing him as ‘at
one end of a broad spectrum of mental health practitioners’. PAS was accepted in only
one case, Re L (Contact: Genuine Fear) [2002] 1 FLR 621, but it is suggested that this was
largely due to the instruction of a more acceptable expert, Dr Berelowitz, a consultant
psychiatrist, who was well known and respected by the family courts.
In the years that followed, while Dr Lowenstein and some entrenched fathers con-
tinued to press for acceptance of PAS, it is likely that the reluctance of courts to accept
PAS led to experts, lawyers and FNF dropping PAS and raising PA instead, as will be
discussed in relation to the next tranche of reported cases.

PA gains acceptance by the courts: 2002 – 2005

Between 2001 and 2005 a consultation on facilitating and enforcing contact took place,
initiated by the CASC. In response to strong representations from fathers’ rights groups
and pro-father MPs, the political and legal terrain became populated with images of
‘obstinate’, gate-keeping mothers who were portrayed as the primary obstacle to contact.
The issue of domestic abuse was transformed into one of ‘false allegations’ being made by
mothers to frustrate contact and exclude fathers. A new key player in this was
Fathers4Justice, which was formed in 2002 and espoused PAS, claiming that mothers
poisoned or brainwashed their children against fathers.
During this period, five cases referring to PA/PAS were identified. All involved
applications by fathers who raised PA (3 cases) or PAS (2 cases). Four of the cases
involved untried allegations of domestic abuse. Although FNF and Dr Lowenstein
continued to raise PAS, the change in terminology to PA led to a growing acceptance
of it by the courts. PA ‘succeeded’ in four of these cases. This included the first case in
which residence of the child was transferred from the mother to the father –
Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute: Interim Care Order) [2003] EWHC 1024 (Fam),
a case that involved unresolved allegations of domestic abuse. The children were
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 21

transferred by force under an interim care order (ICO) but thereafter became resistant to
seeing the mother, and it appears from the judgment that the father and paternal
grandparents were responsible for this.
The only case during this period in which PA did not succeed involved what could be
termed a ‘political’ father – ‘crusading’ fathers usually connected with fathers’ rights
groups. Re O [2003] EWHC 3031 (Fam) concerned an application by Shaun O’Connell,
a prominent campaigner with Fathers4Justice, who had been convicted of causing
criminal damage to the offices of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support
Service (Cafcass) (Ipswich Star 2003). O’Connell’s allegations of PA/PAS against the
mother were rejected, Wall J saying they were ‘part and parcel of [his] attempt to absolve
himself of responsibility’ [93].

Little success for PA: 2006 – 2007

The reported case law was dominated, during this period, by ‘political’ fathers using PAS
as part of a political strategy, without much success. Six judgments referring to PAS/PA
were identified, although two related to different stages of the same case. PA only
succeeded in one case. Five of these reported cases involved serious proven allegations
of domestic abuse perpetrated by the fathers. In a number of these cases Wall LJ sent clear
messages to fathers to stop asserting PA and accept responsibility for their lack of contact
with their children.
However, PA was accepted in Re A (a Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 899, principally
because a ‘credible’ expert, Dr Anderson, raised it as ‘likely’ to happen in the future. This
was an unsuccessful appeal by a mother against a transfer of residence to the father. There
are indications of unresolved allegations of domestic abuse in the judgment. Brissenden
(2010) reports that the child was so unhappy living with the father that he became
suicidal. He was returned to his mother, having been ‘irreparably harmed’ by the move.

Greater acceptance of PA: 2008 – 2010

An increased acceptance of PA can be discerned in this period, when a new ‘credible’ expert
on PA entered the scene, Dr Kirk Weir, an experienced and respected consultant child and
adolescent psychiatrist. He published ‘research’, the sample for which comprised children
from cases in which he had acted as an expert in court proceedings (Weir 2011).
Eight judgments referring to PA were identified during this period, although five relate
to different stages of the same case (four cases in total). One case involved, for the first
time in the reported case law, a non-resident mother alleging PA. Three of the four cases
involved allegations of domestic abuse (two unresolved and one proven). Dr Weir was
instructed in two cases, and in both he ‘diagnosed’ PA. The case that dominated this
period related to a father’s application for a transfer of residence of an 11 year-old boy to
himself from the mother (TE v SH v S [2010] EWHC 192). HHJ Bellamy QC (sitting as
a High Court Judge) was strongly influenced by Dr Weir and had ordered an immediate
change of residence on his recommendation. The judge was particularly influenced by
‘research papers’ referred to him by Dr Weir, which included articles by US PA propo-
nents. The Court of Appeal substituted this with an ICO to the local authority, but even
that went so badly that the child was eventually returned to the mother, having become
22 A. BARNETT

clinically depressed and suicidal. In reflecting on the issue of PA, HHJ Bellamy QC
concluded that he was ‘satisfied that Dr Weir’s evidence as to the concept of alienation . . .
may today be regarded as mainstream’ [46]. However, on the ‘approach that should be
taken in dealing with a case involving an alienated child’ he accepted that the research
base was small and lacked consensus.
The gendered nature of PA can be seen in the only case in which a resident father was
found to have alienated the child against the mother – Re L-W (Children) [2010] EWCA
Civ 1253. The father appealed against committal and enforcement orders for his persis-
tent breaches of contact orders. However, the Court of Appeal considered that it was too
late to do anything about the child’s lack of contact with his mother, and effectively ‘gave
up’ on contact.

A fallow period for PA?: 2010 – 2013

No reported or published cases referring to PA or PAS could be identified between mid-
2010 and July 2013. This does not mean that PA was not raised in the lower courts during
this period but the absence of any reported decisions suggests that it was not prolific. If
claims of PA did wane, this may have been due to the disbanding of Fathers4Justice in
2008, as well as limitations on the ability of parties to instruct experts in family proceed-
ings occasioned by Part 25 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) which came into
force in April 2011.

The re-emergence of PA: 2013 – 2016

In May 2008, in response to studies revealing that the Re L and CASC guidelines were not
being observed by courts, a Practice Direction embodying those guidelines was issued
which was subsequently incorporated into the FPR 2010 as Practice Direction 12J (PD12J).
A number of research studies published between 2012 and 2014 highlighted the extent to
which it was not being observed by the family courts, with domestic abuse being minimised,
allegations of abuse being disbelieved and risk being inadequately assessed (Coy et al. 2012,
Hunter and Barnett 2013, Barnett 2014). In 2014 PD12J was strengthened and revised,
implementing some of Hunter and Barnett's (2013) recommendations.
Predictably, PA re-emerged in the case law with this renewed focus on the issue of
domestic abuse. Between 2013 and 2016 nine reported cases referring to PA/PAS were
identified. Fathers were the applicants in seven cases, and mothers in two. PA ‘succeeded’ in
only two cases and the courts were generally dubious about it. Dr Weir retired in 2013 and
no obvious PA expert emerged to replace him, which may have accounted for this lack of
success. Additionally, severe restrictions on the availability of legal aid from April 2013 had
a knock-on effect on the ability of litigants to instruct an expert. Indeed, seven of these cases
involved at least one litigant in person (LIP). In only one case was a PA expert instructed. In
two cases requests by a parent to instruct PA experts were refused. In four of the cases
domestic abuse perpetrated by the father was identified and in none of them could the
father be considered ‘unimpeachable’.
In one of the cases in which PA ‘succeeded’, Re A (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1104,
Dr Weir ‘diagnosed’ PA but the other expert, Dr Hall, refuted this. Because of the child’s
age (13 at the time of appeal) and firm resistance to contact, the trial judge made
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 23

a residence order to the mother and ordered indirect contact only to the father. Those
orders were set aside on appeal by McFarlane LJ, who concluded that the judge had not
sufficiently analysed the child’s wishes and feelings, including ‘[facing] up to Dr Weir’s
clear evidence that M’s views should not be used as a principal basis for decision making’
[72]. In the other case, Re L (Grave Risk of Harm) (Child’s Objections) [2015] EWHC 3300
(Fam), a finding of PA against the mother by Bulgarian child protection services con-
tributed to the decision of the English court to return the child to Bulgaria, despite
findings having been made of domestic violence by the father.
In the two cases where mothers alleged PA against fathers they fared less well. Re L (A
Child) [2015] (unreported), was clearly not a case of PA on any construction of that
concept, and the mother appeared deluded in raising it. She refused to see or speak to the
child, who was desperate to see her, until the family could be seen by the Family
Separation Clinic (FSC), run by Karen Woodall, a strong PA proponent. HHJ
Robertshaw concluded that there was no justification for instructing any ‘alienation
expert’ and the mother’s application was refused [39]. In JA v TH (2016) (unreported),
the mother wanted the case transferred to Norway on the basis that ‘the Norwegian court
and professionals will be better equipped to address [the issue of PA]’ [28]. Baker J did
not accept this.

PA in the spotlight: 2016 – 2019

In 2016 PA suddenly leapt into the spotlight. Yet again, this coincided with a renewed
focus on the issue of unsafe child contact with perpetrators of domestic abuse. In 2016
Women’s Aid published Nineteen Child Homicides documenting the deaths of 19 chil-
dren killed by their fathers in the context of contact arrangements between 2005 and
2015, which underpinned its ‘Child First’ campaign (Women’s Aid 2016). Led by the All
Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence, the House of Commons held a debate
on domestic abuse, child contact and the family courts (HC Deb 2016). The Child First
campaign led to PD12J being revised and strengthened by Mr Justice Cobb at the request
of the President of the Family Division, including emphasising the mandatory nature of
PD12J (Cobb 2016).
From mid-2016, articles and programmes on PA appeared in the media and the legal
press and the issue was debated in Parliament. Much of the focus of these articles was on
a new ‘High Conflict Practice Pathway’ devised by Cafcass in 2016, which included
measures to address PA. Cafcass subsequently substituted this in October 2018 with
a ‘Child Impact Assessment Framework’ which still aims to address PA but places more
emphasis on assessing risk (Cafcass 2018). The first media article during this period was
published in The Guardian newspaper (Hill 2016). It stated that PA is an internationally
recognised ‘syndrome’ and warned of the increased possibility of removing children from
‘alienating’ parents. It contained some incorrect figures on the prevalence of PA and
quotations by Karen Woodall and Amy Baker, a US PA proponent.1 Further similar
articles in the media followed in 2017. This focus on PA led to a debate in the House of
Commons in March 2017, led by Simon Danczuk MP, who referred to PA as a ‘form of
child abuse’ that needs to be recognised as such by government and the courts, prevented,
and punished (HC Deb 2017).
24 A. BARNETT

A spate of articles by family lawyers appeared in the legal press and as blogs on their
firms’ websites (Abrahams 2016, 2017, Eaton et al. 2016, Wiley 2016, Molan 2017,
Venters 2019). Common themes and suggestions in these articles include lists of ‘alienat-
ing behaviours’ reflecting the US pro-PA/PAS literature, ‘strategies’ of alienating parents,
warnings not to be ‘highjacked’ by children’s expressed wishes and feelings, calls for PA
to be recognised as child abuse and criminalised, the merits of transfers of residence, and,
of course, the importance of involving lawyers who understand and are prepared to argue
PA. A search of PA on the internet produces numerous solicitors’ firms offering their
services as PA specialists.
Unsurprisingly, there was a notable resurgence of claims of PA in the case law from
2017, a growing acceptance of such claims, and an increase in the number of PA ‘experts’.
Twelve cases involving PA were identified between January 2017 and 31 March 2019.
Fathers alleged PA in ten cases; mothers claimed PA in two. PA ‘succeeded’ in eight cases,
in the sense of being accepted and/or ‘proved’, although this did not always lead to the
outcomes sought by the parents and/or experts.
Seven cases involved allegations or indications of domestic abuse, in some of which
the allegations had never been tried and ‘disappeared’ as the proceedings progressed.
Even very serious proven or admitted violence could be minimised and the case recon-
structed as one of an implacably hostile, alienating mother. Many of the cases in which
domestic abuse was identified did not apply or even refer to PD12J, a failure that was
highlighted by McFarlane LJ in J (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 115. On the other hand,
serious domestic abuse featured in the three cases in which the father’s allegations of PA/
PAS were rejected, two of which involved ‘political’ fathers. The courts were clear in all
three cases that the fathers were the authors of their own misfortunes.
A significant feature of this recent case law is the increasing number of PA ‘experts’
emerging on the scene. The child psychologists and psychiatrists instructed in these cases
were all considered credible and reliable, even when they expressed some rather suspect
views. Darren Spooner, a child psychologist and ardent PA proponent, was instructed in
two cases, in both of which he diagnosed PA. In DB v HB v IB [2017] EWFC B24, this led
to a change of residence and in Re D (A Child: Parental Alienation) [2018] EWFC B64 to
findings of fact against the mother of alienating the child. In the latter, Mr Spooner
imported PAS into the case by applying ‘Gardner’s eight symptoms of alienation’ to the
child to ‘diagnose’ PA [178]. Four other ‘credible’ experts appear in the cases, all of whom
diagnosed PA and made various recommendations including transfers of residence or
long-term therapy.
On the other hand, some judges were critical of the PA therapists. HHJ Vincent, in Q v
R (Intractable contact) [2017] (unreported) was sceptical about PA therapy because his own
‘(limited) experience of specialist centres who provide therapy in “parental alienation” cases
has been that it has been extremely expensive, of little practical effect and on some occasions
caused more harm than good’ [137]. The most scathing view of PA therapists, in this case
the Anna Freud Centre (AFC), was articulated by Russell J in P v C and Others (Child
Arrangements Order) [2018] 2 FLR 1139. Russell J observed that the AFC’s recommenda-
tion of a forced removal of the children from the mother to the father demonstrated
a ‘punitive element, towards [the mother] in particular’ and that the father’s determination
to blame everything on the mother was exacerbated by the AFC [43].
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 25

The case law also reveals an increasing number of family lawyer PA ‘specialists’ who
advanced PA on behalf of their clients, including in some rather inauspicious circum-
stances. On the other hand, some family lawyers have developed keen, critical insights into
PA. In Re D (A Child: Parental Alienation) [2018] EWFC B64, Darren Spooner’s report was
energetically attacked by counsel for the mother, local authority and guardian, for failing to
consider ‘any alternative explanations for D’s behaviour other than alienation’ [187], having
a ‘blinkered, rigid and dogmatic’ approach [188], and accepting Gardner’s work.
Another feature of the case law since 2017 is an increasing enthusiasm for transferring
residence of children from ‘alienating’ mothers to fathers. Although transfers of residence
were ordered in only two cases, this appeared to be a likely outcome in another two (in
which the proceedings were ongoing). All four cases involved the instruction of PA experts.
In three cases there were indications of violent and/or abusive behaviour by the fathers
which had never been tested and were effectively ignored. In the other case the mother’s
allegations of domestic abuse were rejected. The first case in which a child was moved from
the care of her mother to her father was DB v HB v IB [2017] EWFC B24, which received
much publicity (unlike the contemporaneous cases in which PA was rejected). It is difficult
to understand why the child in the other case, Re MFS (Appeal: Transfer of Primary Care)
[2019] EWHC 768, was considered ‘alienated’ and why a change of residence was thought
necessary because, by the time of the final hearing, the child was staying with the father
every weekend and had a positive relationship with him. On the outcomes of these transfers
of residence, the judgment in DB v HB v IB [2017] EWFC B24 records: ‘As a postscript, IB
managed the move to her father and by the next hearing on 3rd May, she was also having
contact with her mother.’ [159] However, an article in The Metro newspaper indicates that
the father in Re MFS (Appeal: Transfer of Primary Care) [2019] EWHC 768 was unsup-
portive of the mother’s contact with the child (Middleton 2019).
It is notable how differently a case is narrated and how different the outcome when the
judge does not approach it with a ‘hostile mother’ gaze. In P v C and Others (Child
Arrangements Order) [2018] 2 FLR 1139 Russell J made very serious (and, it seems,
justified) findings against the mother, but made only one passing reference to ‘alienation’
in the judgment. Following the findings, contact with the father was almost immediately
reinstated and went well. When the case returned to court the following year, the judge
accepted the mother’s evidence that she had taken on board the findings and supported
the children’s relationship with the father, and decided that the children should remain
with their mother under a supervision order.
Only two cases throughout the period from 2017 to 2019 involved allegations of PA
applied to fathers as the ‘alienating’ parent. In one highly unusual case, WM v DJ (Hague
Convention: Grave Risk of Harm: Children’s Objections) [2017] EWFC B113, the judge
found that the father and his wife had alienated the children from the mother by a ‘cruel
and serious deception’ [42]. In the other case, Re H (Children) [2019] EWHC 237, a non-
resident mother’s appeal against a refusal to treat the instructed PA psychotherapist as an
expert witness was dismissed but the ultimate outcome of the case is not known.

Discussion
The emergence and development of PA in England and Wales shows a clear pattern of
(initially) PAS and PA being raised in family proceedings in response to concerns about
26 A. BARNETT

and measures to address domestic abuse. This, it is suggested, cogently reveals PA’s
intended purpose – to shut down domestic abuse in private family law (see Meier 2020).
Ironically, however, for individual members of father’s rights groups, the main instiga-
tors of PA/PAS, this strategy did not succeed. What their campaigning efforts around
PAS did do, however, was create the discursive and ideological arena for PA to gain
acceptance and traction. Some judges and professionals are sceptical of PA, others fully
sign up to it, but all participants in the system seem to recognise it now as a valid concept.
While ‘interventions’ for PA remain contested, and PA is not without its critics, the
concept of PA itself has become part of the discursive repertoire of current family law.
PA is now big business, although there is a growing scepticism about the PA ‘industry’
and few judges appear to sanction PA therapy. However, we have also seen the huge
power of the ‘credible’ PA expert. In the hands of ‘political’ experts, PAS did not fare very
well, but in the hands of credible experts, and with the elision to PA, it gained greater
acceptance. Yet some of the ‘credible’ experts import PAS into proceedings under the
guise of PA. The effect of such ‘credible’ experts can be to make the father’s case almost
unanswerable (Birchall and Choudhry 2018).
A major concern revealed by the case law is how raising PA dominates cases to the
exclusion of all else. The complex and complicated lives, emotions and circumstances of
the mothers, fathers and children who come before the family courts are reduced to stark
binaries of good and bad, deserving and undeserving, excluding many other ways of
explaining parents’ and children’s views and behaviour. Palmer (2017) observes that
‘labels tend to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As soon as a parent is diagnosed as
“alienating” and “implacable”, or indeed “relentless” and “failing to listen”, their every
action or inaction tends to be viewed wholly through that prism.’ There are, undoubtedly,
a tiny minority of mothers who do obstruct children’s relationships with caring, non-
abusive fathers (Trinder et al. 2013). However, backing them into a corner with accusa-
tions of alienation will not help the children involved, or the fathers who have to deal
with resistant, angry and distressed children.
These binaries underpin the myth of the ‘unimpeachable father’ on which PA is
premised. Yet none of the fathers in the reported cases could be considered unimpeach-
able, and this is entirely to be expected; ‘it is rare that either side comes to court in this
kind of dispute with spotlessly clean hands’ (Palmer 2017). However, one of the starkest
findings of the case review was the high level of domestic abuse (over 50%) and the
minimal application or even reference to PD12J. A clear divide could be discerned in all
the case law in the courts’ approach to PA claims by fathers. On the one hand, domestic
abuse perpetrated by ‘political’ and/or ‘irrational’ fathers was generally condemned by
the courts, and their claims of PA/PAS rejected. On the other hand, abuse perpetrated by
‘normal’ fathers was frequently filtered out of the proceedings, and in the past five years,
‘normal’ fathers have been increasingly successful in PA claims, even in cases of domestic
abuse. In these cases, abuse could be lurking in the background but never determined; or
it may have been proved but then glossed over or considered too old. Allegations of
domestic abuse could even be used as ‘evidence’ of PA (Birchall and Choudhry 2018).
This reflects the distrust and general hostility that we have seen mothers encounter from
courts and professionals, which underpins and is reinforced by PA, giving rise to a strong
punitive element in PA discourse.
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 27

Although transfers of residence remain rare, the most recent case law suggests an
increased willingness to transfer the care of children from ‘alienating’ resident
mothers to non-resident fathers. However, the outcomes do not support the proposi-
tion that children benefit from this. In two cases, children were returned to their
mothers mentally and emotionally damaged, and in two cases it appears likely that the
fathers were frustrating the mothers’ contact. Mothers, on the other hand, achieved
little to no success in achieving transfers of residence or in successfully claiming PA.
In these cases, it was evident that the fathers were abusive and controlling. Mothers
would be better served narrating the father’s ‘alienating’ conduct as an aspect of this
abuse, rather than as PA.
One of the most worrying aspects of PA is its refusal to accept children’s views as their
own, unless, of course, children want contact with their fathers, in which case their views
are readily accepted. A number of judges in the cases reviewed took children’s wishes and
feelings very seriously. In P v C and Others (Child Arrangements Order) [2018] 2 FLR 1139,
Russell J considered it ‘demeaning to these children to suggest that they are incapable of
independent thought at their ages and with their individual abilities and qualities’ [76].
Other judges, however, encouraged by PA experts, were more than willing to ignore
children’s expressed wishes and feelings, filtering them through discourses of PA.
The almost impossible demands on mothers are also discounted within PA and
general familial discourses. To be a ‘good’, non-alienating mother, women must not
only permit, facilitate and encourage contact, they must be ‘enthusiastic’ and self-
denying, whatever the behaviour of the father might be (Kaganas 1999). There was
very little understanding in some cases of how difficult it is for a parent who has been
at the receiving end of abusive behaviour to ‘encourage’ contact with their abuser.
However, there was little expectation by courts for the ‘normal’ fathers to take steps to
make contact work or allay the mother’s fears.

Conclusions
PA is a concept that is proving more powerful than any other in silencing the voices of
women and children resisting contact with abusive men. PA is not an ‘equal’ counterpart
to domestic abuse, it is a means of obscuring domestic abuse, and should be recognised as
such. We need to find ‘other’ ways of talking about children’s welfare that recognise
children’s interlinked vulnerability, agency and relationships before any further harm is
done to them.

Note
1. See further Doughty et al. (2020).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
28 A. BARNETT

References
Abrahams, J., 2016. In practice: parental alienation. Law Society Gazette, 19.
Abrahams, J., 2017. Parental alienation – is it time to get parliament involved? Family Law, 47,
1252–1254.
Barnett, A., 2014. Contact at all costs? Domestic violence and children’s welfare. Child and Family
Law Quarterly, 26 (4), 439–462.
Birchall, J. and Choudhry, S., 2018. “What about my right not to be abused?” Domestic abuse,
human rights and the family courts. Queen Mary University of London and Women’s Aid.
[online]. Available from: https://1q7dqy2unor827bqjls0c4rn-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/05/Domestic-abuse-human-rights-and-the-family-courts-report.pdf
Accessed 21 November 2019.
Brissenden, C., 2010. Changing residence – a judgment of solomon. Family Law Week. [online].
Available from: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed57393 Accessed 14 October
2018.
Cafcass, 2018. Child impact assessment framework [online]. Available from: https://www.cafcass.
gov.uk/grown-ups/professionals/ciaf/?highlight=CIAF; https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-ups
/parents-and-carers/divorce-and-separation/parental-alienation/ Accessed 31 Jan 2019.
Children Act 1989 (c. 41).
Cobb, S., 2016. Review of practice direction 12J PFR 2010: child arrangement and contact orders:
domestic violence and harm. Report to the President of the Family Division. [online]. Available
from: https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/review-of-practice-direction-12j-fpr-2010-child-
arrangement-and-contact-orders-domestic-violence-and-harm/ Accessed 23 November 2019].
Coy, M., et al., 2012. Picking up the pieces: domestic violence and child contact. London: Rights of
Women.
Doughty, J., Maxwell, N., and Slater, T., 2020. Professional responses to ‘parental alienation’:
research-informed practice. Journal of social welfare and family law, 42 (1), 68–79.
Eaton, D., Jarmain, S., and Lustigman, L., 2016. Parental alienation: surely the time has come to
effect change? Family Law, 46 (1), 581–585.
HC Deb (2016) 614 col. 1082.
HC Deb (2017) 623 col. 496.
Hester, M. and Radford, R., 1996. Domestic violence and child contact arrangements in England and
Denmark. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Hill, A., 2016. Programme aims to help people affected by ‘parental alienation’. The Guardian, 14
July. [online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jul/14/programme-
aims-to-help-people-affected-by-parental-alienation Accessed 24 November 2018.
Hunter, R. and Barnett, A., 2013. Fact-finding hearings and the implementation of the president’s
practice direction: residence and contact orders: domestic violence and harm. London: Family
Justice Council. Available from www.familyjusticecouncil.org.uk [Accessed 21 Feb 2019.
Ipswich Star, 2003. Protesters deny criminal damage. Ipswich Star, 4 September. Available from:
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/protesters-deny-criminal-damage-1-134927 [Accessed 3
April 2019.
Kaganas, F., 1999. Contact, conflict and risk. In: S. Day Sclater and C. Piper, eds. Undercurrents of
divorce. Aldershot: Ashgate, 99–120.
King, M., 2002. An autopoietic approach to ‘parental alienation syndrome’. The Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry, 13 (3), 609–635.
Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law, Children Act Sub-Committee. 2000. A report to
the lord chancellor on contact between children and violent parents. London: The Stationary
Office.
Meier, J., 2020. U.S. child custody outcomes in cases involving parental alienation and abuse
allegations: what do the data show? Journal of social welfare and family law, 42 (1), 92–105.
Middleton, L., 2019. Family of boy, 8, made to live with dad slam ‘hateful feelings’ ruling. The
Metro, 6 May. [online]. Available from: https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/06/family-boy-8-made-
live-dad-slam-hateful-feelings-ruling-9418552 [Accessed 7 May 2019
 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND FAMILY LAW 29

Molan, K., 2017. Intractable contact? New Law Journal, 167 (7764). [online]. Available from
https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/intractable-contact [Accessed 23 November 2019].
Palmer, B., 2017. Have we created a monster? Intractable contact disputes and parental alienation in
context. Family Law Week [online]. Available from: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.
aspx?i=ed182874 [Accessed 23 May 2019.
Rhoades, H., 2002. The ‘No contact mother’: reconstructions of motherhood in the era of the ‘new
father. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16 (1), 71–94.
Sturge, C. and Glaser, D., 2000. Contact and domestic violence – the experts’ court report. Family
Law, 30 (1), 615–629.
Trinder, L., et al., 2013. Enforcing contact orders: problem-solving or punishment? Exeter:
University of Exeter.
Venters, J., 2019. When parental alienation crosses into the criminal jurisdiction. [online]. Family
law week. [online]. Available from: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed200967.
[Accessed 29 April 2019.
Weir, K., 2011. High-conflict contact Disputes: evidence of the extreme unreliability of some
children’s ascertainable wishes and feelings. Family Court Review, 49 (4), 788–800.
Wiley, F., 2016. Serious parental alienation – the approach of the courts and practitioners in 2016.
Family Law Week [online]. Available from: https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=
ed161124 Accessed 21 October 2018.
Women’s Aid, 2016. Nineteen child homicides. Bristol: Women’s Aid.