This front page headline in The Guardian grabbed attention on 17 November 2017 :
Under that headline, journalist Amelia Hill wrote that Cafcass were trying out a ‘ground-breaking new process’ in cases of parental alienation. Hill defined parental alienation as a ‘phenomenon where one parent poisons their child against the other’. We think a better description would be cases where the hostile attitude of one parent leads to a child having negative views of the other that are not a reflection of the child’s own experience, and result in unjustified rejection of that parent. In other words, a child is more aligned with their resident parent than the non-resident parent, to the extent that the child cannot hold an independent view. At The Transparency Project, we were not aware of any new evidence on the prevalence or severity of alienation in the English courts so this article came as a surprise to us.
We had some concerns about aspects of the article, especially the way it gave a misleading impression of Cafcass having powers that they simply do not – for example to make parents undergo therapy and ‘In extreme cases, care proceedings will be initiated and the parent will lose contact with their child’. We were not alone in being puzzled. The Guardian published two letters in response to the article on 29 November: one from Emeritus Professor Jane Fortin whose research has shown that children – even very young ones – can have their own reasons for resisting contact, and one from an anonymous adult who felt s/he had personal experience of alienation when a child. Both letters objected to the coercive threats to children and adults implicit in the proposals as set out by Ms Hill (see here).
As part of our Family Court Reporting Watch project, which is funded by the Legal Education Foundation to check and explain media reports, we wrote to Cafcass to ask for a copy of the new document and were pleased when they offered us the opportunity to interview Sarah Parsons, their Principal Social Worker, and get some clarification of her comments in the article. We have written a lengthy account of the interview and our subsequent correspondence with Sarah Parsons, in : ‘It blew up too soon: Cafcass explain their position on alienation’. In summary, what we learnt from Sarah Parsons and information posted on the Cafcass website later that month was:
- Cafcass is developing a new High Conflict Pathway that it plans to introduce in spring 2018, after a period of consultation with focus groups. This will include, but be wider than, assessing parental alienation. It will not be used in cases where domestic abuse is involved (although answers from Ms Parsons on this were equivocal). Aspects have been piloted or tested in some places since November 2017.
- There is also a separate Cafcass Positive Parenting Programme (PPP) which is a four session programme running over 12 weeks for parents who have only ‘medium levels’ of conflict and who are willing to work together to try to become more child-focused. Referrals to this programme can be made from the High Conflict Pathway but presumably they will be only those cases which are assessed as falling short of ‘high’ conflict.
The connection made by Ms Hill between alienation and being made to attend therapy seems to have arisen from a conflation between these concepts of high and medium conflict. Cafcass has been clear that the PPP is not therapy (but uses therapeutic techniques delivered by Cafcass officers) and is voluntary.
Sarah Parsons declined to send us a copy of the draft High Conflict Pathway because it was not ready to share (although we were assured it would be shared with us when we and others are invited to focus groups in the New Year). However, we have subsequently seen a copy of a document titled: Draft practice pathway: a structured approach to risk assessment in high conflict private law proceedings. It is undated and contains many spelling and typographical errors but the front page does say it is published by Cafcass and available to its staff. It includes guidance on cases which feature domestic abuse and alienation and apparently hypertext links to pre-existing Cafcass tools and guidance located on their intranet (but of course we cannot access these although some are identifiable as pre-existing tools publicly available on the Cafcass site). We assume that this document is the second ‘pathway’ above, albeit apparently not in polished form.
The draft pathway and its place in family proceedings
We were struck by a rather odd theme running through the draft. In the context of the withdrawal of legal aid in private law cases and the current position of many parents having no legal representation, it is matter of concern to read Cafcass telling its staff that family court advisers have the:
‘… complex task of assessing whether allegations made within these proceedings are true, exaggerated or fabricated to inform the [welfare] decisions of the family court’.
On the following page in a box headed ‘Practice Note – Distinguishing between high conflict and domestic abuse’, practitioners are told that
‘This pathway must be used in conjunction with the domestic abuse pathway. The practitioners task is to first determine whether domestic abuse exists within the relationship before continuing with the High Conflict Pathway. Care should always be taken to ensure you have clearly distinguished between couple conflict and situations where there has been a pattern of coercive control.’ [emphasis in original]
Typically, Cafcass are asked to conduct risk assessments after findings have been made (as envisaged in PD12J) but the language of the document suggests something different: if it were envisaged that the risk assessment were to be based upon findings made by a judge, the various references to the need to ‘determine whether domestic abuse exists’ as a ‘first task’ would be redundant. Given that one of the stated objectives of the pathway is to ‘develop a better understanding of the early signs of high conflict and alienating behaviours in private proceedings to support and early intervention approach’ [emphasis in original], it appears as if this is a tool designed as an alternative to a slow and cumbersome judicial determination of facts through trial of evidence.
Rather than an approach to risk assessment as conventionally understood, this guide appears to be directing family court advisers (FCAs) to reach their own conclusions when presented with disputed facts, rather than refer such issues to the court. Although the first page includes references to Cafcass helping the court with ‘informed decision making’, the guide then goes on to tell practitioners that their role includes ‘determining’ issues of domestic abuse (and alienation), without mentioning the function of the court in determining facts. Cafcass officers are being told that they might ‘rule out’ domestic violence and other risk issues, without any expectation that serious allegations be drawn to the attention of the court for a finding of fact.
It would be very worrying if anyone, whether children and parents or professionals, were to interpret this guide as meaning that determinative decisions about the existence and effects of violence and abuse are taken primarily by social work practitioners in Cafcass instead of being subject to forensic examination. Similar questions about forensic process were raised in 2016, when The Transparency Project wrote about the Cafcass approach to domestic abuse which seemed, at that time, to be verging on an assumption that a Cafcass officer could decide whether or not an allegation was true before there was any finding of fact by a court. We received the following reply from Sarah Parsons, featured in our blog post dated 25 November 2016 ‘Open letter from Cafcass on their approach to domestic abuse’:
‘It has always been a social work task to investigate and assess. This inevitably involves assessing the credibility and coherence of the information assembled from all sources. We then arrive at a structured professional judgment – or a view – about what constitutes the evidence base, particularly in relation to child impact, which then informs our recommendations. This is nothing new: it is not a change in role or approach of Cafcass. The distinction between our forming a view and a formal finding of fact hearing is a crucial one. Some cases require a formal finding of fact or facts by a court, but not all cases.
It is not our role to decide on disputed facts and there is no suggestion that we are the final arbiter. We add value to the decision making process in family proceedings by assessing what is in a child’s best interests. Our role is quite rightly limited to making a recommendation, based on our assessment and view formed.’
Although we accepted that (somewhat ambiguous) response at the time, a theme does seem to be emerging here. Although their titles refer to risk assessment, neither the existing Domestic Abuse pathway nor the draft High Conflict pathway contain the term ‘fact finding’ nor any reference to the judicial role or court process, and there is clearly a risk that such documents may be interpreted in ways which are inconsistent with the judges’ fact finding function. Even if this is not what was intended the writer can think of at least one recent case in which she has been involved where a FCA appears to have been drawn into precisely that error.
The legal problems with this are obvious. An FCA’s ‘determination’ of grave allegations based on incomplete evidence, limited testing of that evidence, and the application of a few less than transparent tools (which are not routinely disclosed to the other party) – all within the limited number of hours reasonably available to a FCA working ‘proportionately’, simply cannot be Article 6 compliant (in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law). Cafcass cannot surely expect trial judges to abrogate their own duty to hear the evidence and adopt the FCA’s ‘determination’ as their own – and yet the ‘high conflict’ draft seems to encourage a FCA to go down one route and abandon other possible factual scenarios, leaving the court with a single recommendation that stands or falls depending upon whether the judge agrees with the FCA’s ‘determination’ after hearing all the evidence (and possibly falls even if the judge agrees because the officer has pre-judged matters).
Lest there be any doubt here, the law is very clear: the judge is responsible for determining the facts and making decisions, not the guardian nor any other expert (see for example In Re J (Adoption: Appointment of Guardian ad Litem) [1999] 2 FLR 86 and QS v RS & Anor [2016] EWHC 1443 (Fam) (16 June 2016). The evidence of a FCA is primarily opinion evidence (although to an extent it will contain evidence of fact) which is consistent with Cafcass’s statutory function to advise the court. Under s 7 of the Children Act 1989 that advice is limited to ‘such matters relating to the welfare of that child as are required to be dealt with in the report’. But where a FCA purports to tell the judge which parent should be believed, they are elevating themselves in effect as veracity experts (whilst the court may be assisted by hearing an FCA’s opinion as to whether a child’s account has the hallmarks of coaching, the assessment of veracity of adults is quite a different thing). Even if an FCA had either the time, materials or expertise to act as such an expert, the role of veracity experts in family proceedings is these days very limited, particularly since the advent of FPR r 25.4 and is generally deprecated – because we have judges to perform that function and, as such expertise is held by the judge herself, no further assistance is necessary. As Baker J said in A London Borough Council v K [2009] EWHC 850 (Fam):
‘The ultimate judge of veracity, ie where the truth lies, is the judge and the judge alone. He cannot delegate that decision to any expert. I acknowledge that a child psychiatrist… may be able to point out some features of a child’s account that add or detract from authenticity… But, in my experience, many of these features should be obvious to judges in any event. No expert, however experienced and however well briefed about the case, will be in a position to say where the truth lies. Only the judge sees and hears all the evidence.’
See also Wigan Borough Council v M and Others (Veracity Assessments) [2015] EWFC 8, [2016] 1 FLR 126 (6 February 2015); Re M and R (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] 4 All ER 239, [1996] 2 FLR 195; and Re M (Rev 4) [2015] EWHC 2082 (Fam) (16 July 2015).
It may well be that the draft we have seen has been or will be superceded, but that these errors of principle should ever have appeared in a draft remains a matter of concern if it discloses a broader approach on the part of Cafcass.
Alienation
In so far as parental alienation itself is featured in the high conflict pathway, there is nothing very startling or new – certainly nothing as radical as the picture painted by Amelia Hill. Towards the end of the Cafcass document, there is guidance on referring parents of a child who may be alienated to the Positive Parenting Programme mentioned above (although this is also little odd, because if a parent were deliberately alienating the child, they would not fit the criteria, as stated on the Cafcass website). But Cafcass estimates the prevalence of alienation as very low, at 2% of high conflict cases (Hill wrote that it was 11-15% of all Cafcass cases – we are unsure of her source). Nor does the draft (as Hill described) ‘spell out exactly when children should be removed from the alienating parent and placed with the “target parent”’. Although FCAs are told they have the job of ‘determining’ alienation, they are offered scant guidance on this in the draft. Two pieces of research are cited: Children who Resist Post-Separation Parental Contact by Fidler, Bala and Sainey (2013) and an unnamed work by Fidler et al (2011). We are unable to easily find a publication by Fidler dated 2011, but there are several books and articles by this Canadian team on the topic. Presumably these studies will form the basis of the ‘tools’ that Cafcass are developing.
We note Joanna Abrahams’ recent argument in Family Law at [2017] Fam Law 1252 for introducing specific criteria for the judiciary and report writers on tackling cases where there is alienation, and that she believes Parliament should strengthen the courts’ powers to deal with these cases. While we are not sure how this could be achieved, it is important in the meantime not to lose sight of the current law, under which important decisions about a child’s future relationships are taken on the basis of evidence and recommendations, not solely on a social work risk assessment.
We look forward to hearing from Cafcass about its focus groups, where we hope the differentiation between these various pathways and their appropriate use will be explained. We are worried that, if we are struggling to obtain clarity about the role of Cafcass, there is a risk that Cafcass officers and parents will also be confused, with a real potential for the disruption of proceedings or a breakdown in trust and confidence. It is essential that any tools that Cafcass produces must make clear how they dovetail with the law, the court process and a proper forensic approach to disputed facts.
Post script : This article was originally written for publication in ‘Family Law’. However following communication from Cafcass, the publishers elected not to proceed. We have therefore taken the decision to publish the article here instead. Prior to publication we contacted Cafcass to offer a right of reply and in an attempt to establish what any objections to publication might be, but have not received a response.
[Update 21 Jan : We have realised that the emails we sent to Cafcass prior to publication did not reach them, but we have now re-sent them.]
Feature pic : Stephanie Lepoint on Flickr (creative commons – thanks)
Thank you for publishing your article. Why on earth would the publisher’s of Family Law censor its publication at the behest of a public body?
Personally, I think Cafcass have got themselves into a bit of a pickle. When one is in a hole it is generally advisable to stop digging to ensure you have a way out. Their revised operating framework, which was published last summer, was apparently designed to limit the Cafcass court presence. In the context of the pathway this presents a confused and slightly chaotic vision.
The 2013 ‘research’ you reference sounds like the book jointly authored by N Bala, B J Fidler, M A Saini, Children Who Resist Post separation Parental Contact: A Differential Approach for Legal and Mental Health Professionals (1st edn, OUP 2013). This was informed by R Birnbaum and N Bala, ‘ towards a differentiation of high conflict families: an analysis of social science and Canadian case law (2010) 48 family court review 403; Nicholas Bala & Nico Trocme, ‘False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate’ (2005) 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 1333. etc (See the bibliography in the book for a full list).
The 2011 research by Fidler is possibly: B J Fidler, Children and Divorce: The Voice of the Child and interventions when children resist parental contact. Chicago: Loyola University Chicago School of Laws Civitas Child Law Centre and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).
You state:
‘In so far as parental alienation itself is featured in the high conflict pathway, there is nothing very startling or new –…’
Recent research indicates that high conflict is not necessarily a predictor of parental alienation and even in circumstances where it is present its significance has historically been overstated.
Indeed, in this very blog, PA expert Dr Sue Whitcombe advised:
‘Children become alienated even where there is no overt conflict and/or no overt alienating behaviours. Conceptualising parental alienation solely as an issue related to high conflict will result in a number of cases remaining unidentified. This is a particular issue when alienation has existed in the pre-separation relationship, and where the alienation is so entrenched by the time the case reaches the Court arena that any overt conflict or behaviour on the part of a parent has subsided but the child is fully severely alienated and appears rational in their justification of rejection. The “impact of parental conflict tool”, in my opinion, is insufficient and it would be beneficial to include a more comprehensive range of alienating behaviours such as that suggested by Baker and Ben-Ami (2011) or Harman et al (2016).’
Recent research confirms Sue’s opinion. Alienation and conflict are mutually exclusive and it is simply wrong to conflate them in the way Cafcass have. Indeed their basic premise is built upon extremely suspect foundations.
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/cafcass-response-to-the-transparency-project-comments-on-their-draft-revised-framework/
You also state:
Cafcass estimates the prevalence of alienation as very low, at 2% of high conflict cases…
Because Conflict and high conflict are not necessarily predictors of PA this statement is meaningless.
It’s possible that Hill’s source for estimates of prevalence may have been Anthony Douglas himself who throughout recorded interviews on alienation has been throwing differing statistics around like confetti. Incidentally, Trinder estimated the prevalence of alienation to be very low but used her own definition of the phenomenon despite citing the work of Bala (Liz Trinder, Joan Hunt, Alison Macleod, Julia Pearce & Hilary Woodward, ‘Enforcing contact orders: problem-solving or punishment?’ (2013) Exeter Law School, ) Meanwhile a growing number of judges have remarked upon how often they encounter cases of PA. A fairly typical example is Pauffley LJ statement that that, ‘I regard parental manipulation of children, of which I distressingly see an enormous amount, as exceptionally harmful.’ (H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733 para 740. On the one hand Trinder et al minimise its prevalence and impact by referring to a sample containing a,’ … very small number of implacable hostility cases’. Whilst on the other hand we have the judges relating their observed experience. I think that given the available alternatives it would be best to rely upon the judges interpretation.
I am aware that in Re N [1996] 2 FLR 2 it was determined that social workers do not have expertise in relation to sexual abuse. Nor do they have expertise in whether children’s evidence can be accepted. Have the authorities you quote altered this, or, do they reinforce the point?
Let us not forget that Cafcass is staffed by social workers whose general knowledge of psychology and parental alienation in particular is usually very limited. In fact, recent FOI data has demonstrated that it is lamentably poor. Should they even be offering opinions on psychological or mental health matters without warning the court of the limitations of their expertise and competence in the first place?
Notwithstanding, the legal limits to Cafcass giving evidence outside their expertise and competence, as social workers, they are bound by professional standards. Most of the Cafcass work force is comprised of social workers who must be registered in order to practice. The registration body is ‘The Healthcare Professions Council and their professional standards are contained in their ‘Standards of Performance, Conduct and Ethics’.
( http://www.hcpc-uk.org/assets/documents/10004EDFStandardsofconduct,performanceandethics.pdf)
Section 3 implores registrants to, ‘Work within the limits of your knowledge and skills’ and ‘Keep within your scope of practice’.
Registrants are also advised that they:
‘3.1 … must keep within your scope of practice by only practising in the areas you have appropriate knowledge, skills and experience for.
3.2 …must refer a service user to another practitioner if the care, treatment or other services they need are beyond your scope of practice.’
The standard evidence templates for social workers (endorsed by Cafcass and Anthony Douglas) allow for social workers to disclose their qualifications and experience. Why don’t Section 7 Reports also do this as a matter of routine?
Many thanks to the Transparency Project for illuminating these very serious issues concerning the practice of Cafcass and promoting debate on the issues.
Hi Peter, Thanks for your comment, which is helpful particularly in identifying the likely sources referred to in the document.
You ask about caselaw re social work expertise in whether children’s evidence can be accepted. The authorities we referred to don’t deal with that point or change the law in that respect. When we said ‘whilst the court may be assisted by hearing an FCA’s opinion as to whether a child’s account has the hallmarks of coaching, the assessment of veracity of adults is quite a different thing’ we were basing our remark on experience in practice of judges occasionally drawing assistance from a FCAs observations as to how a particular remark or expressed wish is delivered and whether there are any particular hallmarks or indicators of coaching, rather than any case law on the point. Even in that area it remains a matter for the judge to decide whether a child is telling the truth or expressing their wishes or understanding reliably.
I belive that a lot of the findings are factual and true for cafcass as treated me in similar view of a alienated parent and allowed mother to use children to also insult creating a negative view and guardian not acted equally not fairly towards myself through out my case and cause me to feel distress creating a bad impact on myself and contact arrangements made in new final order
brilliant work thanks and to peter davies for a superb comment
Many thanks for the response. I note that Cafcass have announced an ‘open board meeting’ on 26th January regarding ‘The Voice of The Child’, to which some have been invited and they’ve asked others to register their interest. I wonder whether this might be the consultation?
Also, please accept my apologies because a friend has kindly pointed out that I have accidentally got the reference wrong for one of the quotes I used. The full quote was “I regard parental manipulation of children, of which I see an enormous amount, as exceptionally harmful. It distorts the relationship of the child not only with the parent but with the outside world. Children who are suborned into flouting court orders are given extremely damaging messages about the extent to which authority can be disregarded and give the impression that compliance with adult expectations is optional.” It was actually stated by Parker J and cited on appeal in Re H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733.
Cutting and pasting is just too easy!
Excellent article and response by Peter. Thank you.
We are pleased to see another article challenging the use of ‘parental alienation’ by Cafcass. It must be pointed out that this is theory and not properly researched whether PAS or PA and has been used worldwide for decades to accuse mothers of lying/delusions about domestic or child abuse. The model of PA/S ia still being use routinely whether the term is used or not. This is ofcourse extremely dangerous, and many mothers and children find themselves trapped in a catch 22 situtation..a ‘sign/symptom’ of PA/S being ‘talking about abuse’ and this is often taken as the only sign, with a few trimmings like the mother appearing anxious (or not anxious…) And then come accusations of coaching or influencing the child, so if there is any abuse, it is ignored and assumed, without evidence, to be PA/S/hostility.
Before Cafcass even think about used an untested, unresearched theory perhaps they need training in domestic abuse. child abuse, dynamics of abuse and child psychology, and in personality disorders, in particular Cluster B, Narssistic, Sociopathic. From the lived experience of many mothers and children,Cafcass and court professionals are either purposely supporting or being fooled by these types of behaviour.
To accuse any child of lying, or make it clear to them that it is believed they are lying, then to send them into unsafe, unsupervised contact or residence is far more damaging than PA.
It appears that Cafcass are also a little confused about ‘high conflict families’. They still see domestic abuse as a ‘relationship problem’ and still promote contact with the father at any cost. How are they able to come up with these ideas when they have no understanding of the subject? Considering it is more likely cases will end up in court due to domestic abuse, which is a perpetrator problem, there seem to be great confusion among professional. The majority are seem as PA and accusations of lying are very common. Easy for anyone in a powerful position to take over a family, have a belief system and make it fit. Even if there were some kind of genuine ‘alienation’, how does taking a child away from their primary carer and the life they had previously, have any benefit? All it does is cause resentment and trauma.
It is to be noted that PAS and ‘implacably hostile’ were found not admissible in Case Re L et al, by a higher court and expert review panel and is the basis of PD12J.
I agree with You. I have been though this trauma. I looked after my daughter who is 8 now and my son who will be 4 next week. My ex accused me of domestic abuse, child neglecting, etc based on false allegations. One day i came home to find out my children had gone. It has been 10 months i don’t know where they are or even if they are in the country. After applying to see the data protection i realised the amount of lies and the social worker misled the assessment. My ex and the social service has blocked me from seeing the children. As far as i know the ex, she is poisoning my children against me. I am worried about the children and what the mother is doing to them including hitting.
Absolutely perfectly put. I am personally facing and have faced for nearly two years an ongoing battle by a very partisan towards father and frankly idiotic approach by a guardian who has chosen to ignore findings of financial abuse (in financial remedy proceedings) as she clearly thinks ‘she is right’ without any evidence, never mind tested by the courts and continues to frankly persecute me, cherry pick points to her own end and continues to not my children at risk with contact to the point my 10 year old has threatened self harm due to contact yet that is a ‘symptom’ of mothers alienation according to the Guardian. This situation cannot be allowed to go on-it’s needs to be publically addressed and Cafcass put to proof and totally reassess their behaviour and approach.
I will be surprised if you receive a substantive response. In my (fortunately limited) experience of the organisation, CAFCASS appears to believe itself to be infallible and above the law. Worse still, it appears not to understand the difference between actual evidence and unsupported assertion, or real life and the pathetic tat that passes for academic research in the social ‘science’ field. In this alleged age of austerity, we could save a few bob and much misery by shutting them down.
At the end of the day with PAS it needs a robust person with expertise in recognising the disfuctionsl dynamics to deal with these abusive cases. CAFCASS have been given to much power which sadly have kept thousands of children in danger. This was the case with myself and my two sons. Thankfully I managed to rescue my sons outside of the court arena 6 years after utter abuse through the court system and CAFCASS.It cost me a small house in legal fees for nothing but abuse and heartache. What needs to happen is an expert training for CAFCASS Simple as that .. How the hell does Anyhony Douglas have clue re PA what 1st hand experience had this man had. One of my sons had to have 6 months of intensive therapy when I finally rescued him .. other children are not so lucky. [edited]
I also experienced abuse through years through the court system and with caffcass. Spent lots of money for nothing. Lost my children to the perpetrator of parental alienation. There was parental alienation but they did not stop it. Instead I was rejected and lies were taken as truth
Cafcass is probably one of the most disloyal services in this country,
How can someone make an opinion that has only seen for three hours and destroying my future dispicable and not justice
How do I go about suing cafcass?
Hi Adri,
That’s not something we can advise on I’m afraid.
Lucy
A distinction between an organizations own ‘self interest’ and the job tasked to do. This will be influential on the ‘quality’ of the job if the end ‘product’ is never viewed. Parental Alienation both damages childhood and later adult life. Unmeasured by Cafcass and historically denied by them. Contrast this ‘output’ with it’s ‘self interest’ of efficiency reports daily hitting management desks.
A major conflict of interest issue urgently needing to be separated. The problem independently understood from the individual up to societal. Cafcass unable to do this (zero expertise within the organization) compounded by it’s view able ‘balance sheet’ improving the more it strongly it denies P.A.
P.A is not a sociological construct, it’s origin’s belong to people and personality, a medical science area of expertise. Family Law/Cafcass in contrast seem to apply a sociological explanation to family breakdown issues.
Government, Family Law and Cafcass have turned a blind eye up to now yet the evidence is overwhelming, including from the medical profession without any axe to grind. Public opinion is growing in awareness and will continue to erode the ‘authority’ of these public organizations until the nettle is seen to be responsibly grasped.
Define the ‘rabbit’ using independent medical expertise then the chase to achieve ‘A Child’s Best Interest’ can at least be attempted.
”We think a better description would be cases where the hostile attitude of one parent leads to a child having negative views of the other that are not a reflection of the child’s own experience, and result in unjustified rejection of that parent.” I have no issue with this statement, this is were I am stunned:
” In other words, a child is more aligned with their resident parent than the non-resident parent, to the extent that the child cannot hold an independent view.”
What?? This is assuming the child is being alienated by the resident parent.. What is to stop the non resident parent claiming parental alienation, while they are the perpetrators of this behaviour, in order to use the courts as a means to continue to intimidate a former partner. Particularly if issues of domestic abuse continue with a new partner, which give the resident parent cause to take the matter to court. Surely both parents, resident and non resident are capable of this, especially where former relationships were based on control and abuse, which often filters through into court. If the non resident parent is the abuser and control over the former partner whom is the resident parent is lost, this can become the next stick to beat them with…
I fully agree with Sarah. My friend’s partner was the non-resident partner who is a narcissist. He is good at projecting the image of a caring and concerned father.She took more than two decades to come out of the relationship. Unfortunately,it is very difficult for my friend to prove parental alienation in court and CAFCASS is unable to identify parental alienation due to lack of training and experience. There are so many moving factors which includes lack of continuity , expertise, prejudice and so on. I would say the greater victim is going to be the child!
Hi my ex as well is narcissist and caffcass acusse me the parental alienation now they turn all on me so they want to give the costudy of my son when my I have to leave my ex for domestic abuse they ignore all this now the thing’s chance to me I am the abuser
Disgusting too how they can if Psychologicist report (of which the children’s lawyer chose and spent lots of people’s,tax payers money on re as from legal aid) does not support their view of parent alienation then say the psychologicist report is flawed. But surely psychologicist has more education in determining parent alienation than the Guardian etc. Then threatening take children into care unless agree to them seeing their abusive father unsupervised even threatene remove to his care. Family law is a farce which has using Parent alienator without any evidence to systematically ruin people’s/ children’s lives.
I’m currently going through the family courts. I’ll quickly list what I’ve seen happen and perhaps you can tell me whether you would consider this to be Parental Alienation.
We have had to edit your comment because it contained detail of ongoing court proceedings. The Transparency Project does not give legal advice. You need to consult a solicitor.
jean 21/9/2018 I have a question What if a grand parent is doing the alination and the target is the Mother?
I have been accused of parental alienation following a fact finding that went against me. I had a panic attack in the witness stand when being cross-examined about being abused by my ex who was seated a few meters away. The lack of understanding regarding domestic violence is startling. We were constantly being seen as a ‘High Conflict’ couple.
I find it hard to understand why parental alienation is being showcased and accepted before the agencies are educated about domestic violence. It is really dangerous. Now I have no way of protecting my child against a man I know to be violent. Domestic violence is hard to prove and this mechanism forces CAFCASS to take a black and white view – no domestic violence proven therefore this must be parental alienation.
To complicate matters my son shows signs of being autistic. (I have a daughter with a diagnosis). This particularly affects his ability to communicate and he sounds like a little professor and has done since he was 4. One of Cafcass’ signs of parental alienation is this: ‘Speech about rejected parent appears scripted, it has an artificial quality; no conviction; uses adult language; has a rehearsed quality’. Enter my son, who talks like the television program he is currently in too, which happens to be Jeremy Clarkson at the moment, and hey presto – CAFCASS can tick this box.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/enquiry-into-cafcass-and-failure-to-protect-children?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1539068738
Hi Virginia, regarding this link to a petition, we’d like to add that policy and guidance in Cafcass have recently been revised and updated so it would be worth checking this out if you have concerns. The Transparency Project will shortly be commenting here on the new framework, and is also writing a new guidance note on how family courts deal with allegations of domestic abuse.
How is it possible for a child as the subject of a parenting order be complicit in contravening the order. Complying with instructions on the basis that an adult issued them is not the same as free choice to comply with instructions having the option to explain or explore why or why not comply with the instructions ( independent of considering whether an adult is safe and regulated). an interest and education in decision making would be of more use to a child than unquestioned compliance. Children are free agents really. Parenting is supporting healthy development, making healthy choices that preserve safety of self and do not harm others etc. Otherwise it is not parenting it is an absence of parenting. Making a value judgement about parenting good or bad is a non sequiter. In the context of non compliance with an order because a parent encouraged it, the parent has free choice over their actions, it just may not have an outcome that they find desirable. A useful education for any minor.
This is currently happening to me and its trutly devastating I have not done anything wrong and my ex has stopped me and my family seeing my son for no reason. She is brainwashing and alienating him in to thinking we are bad and says very nasty things to our child which are not true, I have not seen our son in over month and its heartbreaking because me and our son had a great relationship now it seems beyond repair, I need help or advice on where to go because I cannot carry on like this. I would totally understand if I had done anything wrong or brought any harm to our child but I have not, I just do not know what to do. I do not want to take this to court but that seems like the last resort, I do not want to put him through that because it seems unfair.
Hi, I’ve removed your name just for identification. We are a legal education charity so unfortunately cannot offer any legal advice. However, I’d recommend you seek out the advice of an accredited children’s solicitor which you can find on the Law Society website. I’m sorry we can’t help further. Annie
I have been subjected to parental alienation. I’ve not seen my daughter since 2010, she was eight. She’ll be 16 next month.
I’ve had absolutely no contact with her. I’ve cried many times.
My ex used the system to prevent contact. Eventually this culminated in being aided in her fabrication of lies, by the very person who was supposed to be impartial.
The social worker!!!!
I also found out much later that the actual judge who allocated himself to the case, was a “family friend” of my ex-wife.
I had to suffer the ordeal of being questioned by the police and countless, fruitless trips to court.
I ended being exonerated by the police, of all allegations.
The soul person who ended up being culpable for me not having contact with my daughter, was the social worker, appointmented by cafcass and the courts.
The family justice system is totally broken. Dad’s are sidelined and totally disrespected.
Come talk to me if like. I have documentary evidence to back up all of my claims.
I even tried, without success to show the social worker that my ex had a history of drug & alcohol abuse.
My daughter was born with jittery baby syndrome.
This was all ignored by the court.
Though as I found out later the judge was a family friend, it was only ever going one way.
J
The social worker in my case also aided my ex in the fabrication of lies. Even though it was obvious they were lies they aided the abuser
I have just revisited this thread and it is worrying to note how, in spite of the publication of PD 12 J a few weeks beforehand, Sarah Parsons has not taken the practice direction on board. In particular para 16:
‘The court should determine as soon as possible whether it is necessary to conduct a fact-finding hearing in relation to any disputed allegation of domestic abuse –
(a) in order to provide a factual basis for any welfare report or for assessment of the factors set out in paragraphs 36 and 37 below; etc’
Yet again here is evidence of Cafcass aspiring to usurp the judicial function of fact finding.
At the Fnf PA seminar Michael Douglas referred to a ‘mindset’ that was still present despite his having been in post for well over a decade.
Does anything change?
Hi Peter. Cafcass’ most current position is in their new Child Impact Assessment Framework here: https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-ups/professionals/ciaf/ (The Transparency Project plan to comment on that new framework when we can. We will also shortly be launching a new guidance note on how family courts deal with allegations of domestic abuse ahead of this Transparency Project event:http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/events/)
Thanks for the reply.
The problem is that we still have not seen hide nor hair of the CIAF. There are just vague references to it in other documents.
Besides, in proceedings don’t practice directions take precedence over Cafcass’s operating frameworks? Do Cafcass have any powers with regard to secondary legislation.
I get the impression that Cafcass consider themselves to be above the rule of law.
The CIAF is published on Cafcass website as of a few weeks ago. The link is here (as I said yesterday): https://www.cafcass.gov.uk/grown-ups/professionals/ciaf/ We intend to comment. But only after we have read the relevant material.
Liars don’t want facts because facts are truth
Cafcass mention on many occasions about the ‘TOOLS’ that they use to attempt to establish the ‘veracity’ of cases, but do not make clear to anyone involved, what these ‘Tools’ are or when or how they are used in any case.. Therefore they must be broken or damaged ‘TOOLS’ .If the child/ren, contact with either parent, under the ‘safety net’ & ‘wing’ of Cafcass hasn’t improved & increased contact & time, with an ‘alienated’ parent..Even though they have the facilities to provide supervised contact centre..Where they may have better working ‘Tools’ to observe the child/ren & parents transparently in a neutral environment for all, to maybe establish ‘veraticy’ ..That should be a recommendation over a period of time, until Cafcass are as close to 100% sure & confident in the truth & facts & veracity of the case & childs true ‘wishes & feelings’, to come to an unbiased & informed & educated decision..This can only be established in this way or by ‘befriending’ a child over a period of time..Seems too much for Cafcass to implement into their ‘system’ or ‘program’ or ‘tools’ ..They pass cases on to ‘family therapy’ sessions..That are ‘hearsay’ to a court, as an in depth report is not allowed to be made to the court to see or read or hear..Totally shambolic are ‘Cafcass’ research & homework are ‘tools’ that they do not have in place to use, why not ? Funding ? Politics ? Attitude ? Professional ? Approach ? Listening ? Hearing ? Seeing ? If they need any help in finding these type of ‘tools’ give me a shout , with my ‘tools’
Alienators can poison/program the child/children even while the marriage is intact. Then if the target parent wakes up and sees what is happening and tries to leave, the alienator turns the child/children completely against the parent where the child/children will testify to things that never happened but were programmed into the children whereas they really believe the things they say. They are mind-controlled to hate, disrespect, and refuse to see the target parent. The psychological child abuse is usually the work of a narcissist parent who uses the child/children as pawns to terrorize that target parent who has no way of protecting the child/children for the abuser/programmer.
Interestingly an analysis of actual statistics, obtained by running the Cafcass and CSA databases together (https://kurir.kingston.ac.uk/mellor2011.pdf) shows that giving the children to the targeted parent forces the alienating parent to the negotiating table and outcomes tend to be overwhelmingly positive (over 95% certainty). The “easy” option of giving the children to the alienator means everyone is stuck in a cycle of emotional abuse. Courageous judges are few and far between, so thanks Judge Gordon-Saker (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2017/B24.html) who gave the children to the targeted father and an exclusion order to the alienator mother.
If your child has reported sexual abuse and the father is claiming PAS, it seems crazy that CAFCASS rely on theories that have been dismissed by our medical and scientific communities, to make decisions about safeguarding. It is truly incredible that family courts don’t have a better awareness of real clinical conditions versus quack theories. The fact that family law promote the concept of PAS when it has little scientific grounding as a legitimate reason to continue power games against the mother who is usually in a weaker financial position is astounding.
As a fairly literate scientist I have been reading these articles in preparation for the ‘fight’ ahead. 30% of child sex abuse cases reported to the police reach the CPS stage. How are mothers expected to safeguard their children when it is so easy for men with money to leverage PAS in their power games against their families?
I’ve experienced abuse through the court system and with caffcass. Truth taken as lies. I spent a lot of money on the legal side. They don’t stop the parental alienation and instead believed the lies and over two years at court didn’t let me have witnesses or let me submit a witness statement. This is not justice. Lost my children to an abuser