Parental Alienation and the Family Court: A Guide for Parents in England and Wales

When a relationship breaks down, most parents manage to put their children first, even when things are painful between the adults. But in some cases, one parent takes steps that undermine the child’s relationship with the other, including repeating negative messages, disrupting contact, or manipulating the child’s feelings. This is what many people call parental alienation.

The law in England and Wales takes this issue seriously. But the way courts approach it has changed significantly in recent years, and anyone dealing with this situation needs to understand the current legal position.

This guide explains what parental alienation means legally today, how the courts approach it in 2026, and what steps you can take to protect your child and your relationship with them.

1. What Is Parental Alienation, and What Do Courts Now Call It?

The term ‘parental alienation’ is still widely used by parents, the media, and in internet searches. But courts in England and Wales have moved on from it.

In Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam), the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, confirmed that family judges have for some time regarded the label of ‘parental alienation’, and the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome of that name, as unhelpful. The concept of a ‘parental alienation syndrome’ has been rejected as pseudo-science with no evidential basis.

In December 2024, the Family Justice Council (FJC) published its formal guidance on the subject. The preferred term is now ‘Alienating Behaviours’ defined as: ‘Psychologically manipulative behaviour by one parent that has the potential or intention to undermine, manipulate or damage a child’s relationship with the other parent, leading to the child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with that parent.’

Cafcass uses similar language, describing how one parent may express an ongoing pattern of negative attitudes, communications and actions that have the potential or intention to undermine or damage a child’s relationship with the other parent.

The practical difference matters: the old framing treated alienation as something an expert could identify and diagnose. The new approach treats it as a pattern of behaviour that must be proved through evidence, like any other factual allegation in court.

2. What Counts as Alienating Behaviour?

Alienating behaviour is not limited to deliberate, calculated campaigns. It can occur through thoughtlessness or through a parent projecting their own feelings onto a child. The motive matters, but even unconscious behaviour can cause serious harm to a child.

Examples recognised by the courts include:

• Repeatedly speaking negatively about the other parent in front of the child, or encouraging the child to share those views with others.
• Telling a child the other parent does not love them, or that they prefer a new partner.
• Making a child feel guilty for enjoying time with the other parent
• Involving the child in adult disputes, sharing details of court proceedings or relationship conflict.
• Disrupting contact arrangements or refusing to facilitate court-ordered contact.
• Making unfounded allegations of abuse against the other parent to trigger safeguarding processes.

Expert insight:

I have had more than one case where the child(ren) have witnessed a dispute which took place between the parents when they separated, where infidelity has been alleged, and as a result they have not wanted to see the parent who has been accused of the infidelity for fear of being disloyal to the left-behind parent.

How Is Alienating Behaviour Different from Intractable Hostility?

The courts have distinguished between two related but distinct situations. In Re B (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 1088, explained:

• Intractable (or implacable) hostility is where a parent refuses to allow contact, often irrationally and for poor motives, even though the child may welcome it.
• Alienating behaviour is where the child has become resistant to a relationship with a parent, generally through the influence of the other parent.

It is also important to recognise what alienating behaviour is not. A child’s reluctance to see a parent may be an ‘appropriate justified reaction’ (AJR), meaning a reasonable response to that parent’s own behaviour, including exposure to domestic abuse. The courts are clear that a child cannot be found to have been subject to alienating behaviour if their reluctance stems from the other parent’s conduct.

3. How Do Courts Approach Parental Alienation Cases in 2026?

The legal framework has been substantially reshaped by three developments: the decision in Re C [2023], the Family Justice Council guidance of December 2024, and the landmark ruling in Re Y [2026].

Step One: Domestic Abuse Allegations Must Come First

Where both alienating behaviours and domestic abuse are alleged, which is common in these cases, the court must determine the domestic abuse allegations before considering any assessment of alienating behaviour. This sequence is not optional. Allegations of alienating behaviours and domestic abuse can be heard at the same fact-finding hearing, but the domestic abuse allegations should be dealt with first.

The reasoning is important: if a finding of domestic abuse is made, the child’s reluctance to see the perpetrating parent may be entirely justified. To assess alienating behaviour before that finding would risk reversing the correct conclusion.

Step Two: Factual Findings Before Expert Evidence

Courts must establish the factual picture from evidence before directing any expert psychological assessment. This was a central finding in Re Y [2026] EWFC 38, where the President of the Family Division set aside earlier findings because the judge had relied almost entirely on expert opinion without first establishing the facts through a proper fact-finding hearing.

Step Three: Expert Evidence from Regulated Professionals Only

If expert psychological evidence is needed, only registered or chartered psychologists should be appointed unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary. Re Y was also a direct response to a case in which an unregistered, unchartered psychologist had given evidence that led to a mother losing her children for nearly six years.

The court in Re Y made clear that where a psychologist is not registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) or chartered by the British Psychological Society (BPS), their evidence should not ordinarily be admitted. Proposed changes to the Family Procedure Rules are expected to codify this requirement further in mid-2026.

Step Four: What the Court Must Consider

In any child arrangements decision, including those involving parental alienation, the court’s paramount consideration is the welfare of the child under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The court applies the welfare checklist at section 1(3) and will weigh:

• The child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings, considered in light of their age and understanding.
• The child’s physical, emotional and educational needs.
• The likely effect of any change in circumstances.
• The child’s age, sex, background and any relevant characteristics.
• Any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.
• The capability of each parent to meet the child’s needs.

In parental alienation cases, identifying the child’s genuine wishes is especially complex. Where a child has been subject to sustained influence by one parent, their expressed views may not reflect their true feelings. The court is required to consider ascertainable wishes and feelings, not simply what the child says at face value.

Under rule 16.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the court may join the child as a party and appoint a guardian to represent their independent interests, and this should not be delayed where necessary.

4. What Is the Court Likely to Order?

The remedy in any parental alienation case depends on a full assessment of the child’s welfare, not just on whether alienating behaviour is established. The FJC guidance is explicit: a finding of alienating behaviour and/or non-compliance with court orders is not an automatic trigger for a change in the child’s living arrangements.

In practice, courts will first seek to address the situation through less disruptive means, for example penal notices attached to contact orders, referrals to family therapy, or supported contact arrangements. Transfer of residence is approached as a welfare decision, not a sanction.

Transfer of Residence

Transfer of residence (moving a child from one parent’s home to the other’s) has been used in serious cases of parental alienation over the years. The earlier case law, including Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam) and Re H (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWHC 2723 (Fam), confirmed that this option should not be viewed as a last resort or described as a draconian measure. McFarlane P stated in Re L that the correct test is always a comprehensive analysis of the child’s welfare, and the words ‘last resort’ or ‘draconian’ should not indicate a higher or different threshold.

However, the picture has changed since 2023. Re Y makes clear that some earlier transfer-of-residence orders were made on a fundamentally flawed basis, relying on unregulated experts, without the domestic abuse allegations being heard first. The court is now more circumspect. Transfer of residence remains available, but courts will scrutinise both the process and the evidence far more carefully before taking that step.

5. How the Case Law Has Developed

The courts have not always approached parental alienation in the way they do today. Understanding how the law has evolved is important: it explains why the current framework exists, and why earlier cases must be read carefully in context rather than as a straightforward guide to what courts will do now.

Phase 1: The earlier approach (2019 to 2022)

During this period, courts were willing to order transfer of residence in parental alienation cases and resisted language that treated this as a last resort. Expert psychological evidence was regularly instructed and given significant weight, often without prior fact-finding on domestic abuse. These cases remain good law on the welfare test, but must now be read in light of what came after 2023.

Re H (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWHC 2723 (Fam)

A 12-year-old child had been living with his mother since his parents separated in 2007. Following a breakdown in contact, the mother made domestic violence allegations against the father, all of which were dismissed. Expert assessment found the child was triangulated within the parents’ conflict and prioritising the mother’s needs over his own. Keehan J found the mother had alienated the child and ordered transfer of residence to the father, concluding the absence of the father had caused and would continue to cause the child harm.

Expert insight:

This case predates both the FJC guidance and Re Y [2026]. Under the current framework, a fact-finding hearing on the domestic abuse allegations would be required before any expert assessment of alienating behaviour could be commissioned.

Our advice for a case in these circumstances would differ to a certain extent depending on which party we represent. The advice that would be given to both is that the court will consider allegations of alienating behaviours from the outset (or as soon as possible if raised later), and that it is for the court to determine whether they are established or not, having regard to the three-stage test set out in the FJC guidance.

A fact-finding hearing would be necessary to determine allegations of alienating behaviours and, if established, consideration would then be given to next steps to include whether the child should be made a party, whether support can be offered to the family etc. A change of residence does remain an option available to the court. Any decisions made in relation to the child will be on the basis of the welfare checklist.

Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam)

McFarlane P rejected the language of transfer of residence as a weapon of last resort, confirming that the correct test is always a comprehensive welfare analysis under the section 1(3) checklist. There is no heightened or different threshold simply because the order involves changing a child’s living arrangements between two parents rather than into care.

Re A and B (Parental Alienation No 1) [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam)

The mother admitted making up allegations and acknowledged she had gone too far. The court found she had caused the children emotional and psychological harm by alienating them from their father, and that future alienation would prevent any repair of the relationship. Transfer of residence to the father was ordered to prevent further harm.

Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult: Transfer of Primary Care) [2020] EWHC 1940 (Fam)

The mother’s involvement with an organisation found to be a socially harmful cult had led to the child’s alienation from her father. The Court of Appeal in Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568 confirmed that the short-term harm of transferring residence was outweighed by preventing further alienation, and that transfer is not to be treated as a last resort.

Phase 2: The turning point (2023 onwards)

From 2023, the courts have confronted serious problems with how parental alienation cases have been managed. Concerns about unregulated experts, inadequate fact-finding on domestic abuse, and the risk of wrongly removing children from a parent led to a fundamental rethink. The three developments below now form the governing legal framework.

Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)

Sir Andrew McFarlane confirmed that ‘parental alienation’ is not a diagnosable syndrome and that the label is unhelpful. The judgment set out clear requirements for the instruction of expert psychologists, requiring registration with the HCPC or chartered status with the BPS. This case was the pivot point, and laid the groundwork for the guidance and judgment that followed.

Family Justice Council Guidance on Alienating Behaviour (December 2024)

Following one of the largest consultations in the FJC’s history, comprehensive guidance was published setting out how courts and professionals should approach cases where a child is reluctant or refusing to spend time with a parent. Key principles:

• ‘Parental alienation syndrome’ has no evidential basis and is harmful pseudo-science. The correct term is ‘alienating behaviour’.
• Allegations of domestic abuse must be addressed before alienating behaviour can be assessed.
• A child’s reluctance may be an appropriate justified reaction to a parent’s own conduct, not evidence of manipulation.
• Findings of alienating behaviour are relatively rare in practice, even where allegations are common.
• A finding of alienating behaviour is not an automatic trigger for transfer of residence.

Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38

The most significant recent development. In February 2026, the President of the Family Division set aside findings made in 2019 that a mother had alienated her two children from their father. Those findings had been made on the evidence of an unregistered, unchartered psychologist and without any fact-finding hearing on the mother’s domestic abuse allegations. The children had been living with their father with no contact with their mother for nearly six years.

Sir Andrew McFarlane described the original approach as fundamentally flawed. The judgment confirmed:

• Domestic abuse allegations must be determined before alienating behaviour is assessed. This sequence is mandatory, not discretionary.
• Only HCPC-registered or BPS-chartered psychologists should be appointed as experts unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary.
• Whether alienating behaviour has occurred is a factual question for the court, not a matter for expert diagnosis.
• The judgment has opened the door for families affected by similar procedural errors to seek to revisit earlier decisions.
• Changes to the Family Procedure Rules are expected in mid-2026 to formally embed these requirements.

6. Step-by-Step: What to Do If You Are Concerned About Parental Alienation

1. Keep a detailed record. Note dates, times and what was said or done. Include any messages, emails or social media posts. Evidence of a pattern matters far more than individual incidents.
2. Seek legal advice promptly. The earlier you involve a specialist family solicitor, the more options you are likely to have. A solicitor can advise whether to seek a child arrangements order, a fact-finding hearing, or a section 7 welfare report.
3. Do not retaliate. Speaking negatively about the other parent to or around your child, even in frustration, can be used against you in proceedings. Courts look at the conduct of both parents.
4. Apply for a child arrangements order if contact has stopped. If contact has broken down, an application to the Family Court will trigger judicial oversight. The court has a positive duty to promote contact where it is safe to do so.
5. Understand the expert evidence rules. Following Re C [2023] and Re Y [2026], any psychological expert must be HCPC-registered or BPS-chartered. If an unregulated practitioner has been involved in your case previously, seek advice about whether earlier findings can be revisited.
6. Consider whether domestic abuse is also a factor. If there are any allegations of domestic abuse on either side, those must be addressed through a fact-finding hearing before the court considers alienating behaviour. This is now a legal requirement.

When to Seek Legal Advice

You should speak to a specialist family solicitor as soon as possible if:

• Contact with your child has been stopped or significantly reduced, and you are concerned it is being manipulated.
• Your child is expressing strongly negative views about you that do not reflect your relationship with them.
• The other parent is making allegations against you that you believe are false or exaggerated.
• A court order is already in place but is not being followed.
• You have previously been the subject of findings of parental alienation and believe those findings were based on evidence from an unregulated expert.
• You are being accused of alienating behaviour and want to understand your position.

Talk to Our Family Law Team

At Fullers Family Law, we advise parents across England and Wales, including London and the surrounding areas, on child arrangements, contact disputes, and cases involving parental alienation and alienating behaviour. We understand how distressing it is when your relationship with your child is being undermined, and we will give you clear, practical advice on your options.