On 17 November the Guardian ran a front page article by Amelia Hill about a “groundbreaking” new trial that CAFCASS were running, to tackle parental alienation. It contained substantial quotes from CAFCASS’ Principal Social Worker, Sarah Parsons, so appeared to have incorporated their input and therefore seemed likely to be reliable. The headline was :
Hill reported that :
• From spring 2018, all frontline Cafcass caseworkers will be given a new set of guidelines called the high conflict pathway, which will itemise the steps social workers must take when dealing with cases of suspected alienation. The pathway will spell out exactly when children should be removed from the alienating parent and placed with the “target parent”…
• Alongside the guidelines, Cafcass has developed a 12-week intense programme called positive parenting, designed to help the abusive parent put themselves in their child’s position, and give them skills to break their patterns of behaviour.
• A trial of it will start shortly, with 50 high-conflict families being sought across the country. After an evaluation in spring, the programme will be rolled out nationwide.
• If it does not work, psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health experts will be brought in. If the alienating parent continues to perpetuate the abuse, however, contact with their child will be limited to supervised visits.
• In extreme cases, care proceedings will be initiated and the parent will lose contact with their child.
This was confusing for lawyers in the field, because it appeared to cut through existing law on who takes decisions about the removal of children (judges do). Sarah Parsons was quoted by Hill as saying
We have reached a much clearer position on parental alienation recently, which we want to send a very clear, strong message about…The current, popular view of parental alienation is highly polarised and doesn’t recognise this spectrum. We want to reclaim the centre ground and develop a more nuanced, sophisticated understanding of what’s going on.
The new arrangements described by Hill don’t seem to be centre ground or nuanced at all – they sound draconian and rather frightening – and appear to give CAFCASS huge decision-making powers that they do not legally have, and seem to write the judge out of the storyline altogether.
In response to the Guardian piece, Emeritus Professor Jane Fortin wrote to the Guardian expressing her concern. Her letter was published this week and said :
Cafcass’s plan to “help” “abusive” parents “to change their behaviour with the help of intense therapy” sounds Kafkaesque, especially with the ultimate sanction of care proceedings to remove the child.
(Jane Fortin’s research which raised concern about the risks of potential overdiagnosis of alienation, as referred to in her letter is here by the way)
We were certainly finding it difficult to know exactly what to make of this new scheme, because perplexingly, there was no trace of any “groundbreaking” new pathway on the CAFCASS site and it wasn’t clear what had prompted the publication of the article in the first place.
Only a few days before the Hill article appeared, Sarah Parsons had spoken at an event at Westminster hosted by Only Dads and Only Mums, and at first we wondered if the quotes had been taken from the speech given there. But once the text of that speech was published, it became apparent that this was not the source – and that what had been said at the meeting was in many respects at odds with the scheme as described by the Guardian. In particular, Parsons is quoted there as saying :
• We must be extremely careful not to categorise a situation as parental alienation when domestic abuse is the cause of justified rejection…
• Cafcass is developing a High Conflict Practice Pathway to aid assessment in all high conflict cases, which may or may not include alienation. Feedback is being sought from interested parties over the next three months.
• Cafcass is also piloting a structured intervention suitable for certain cases where parents are stuck in conflict.
We were signposted to some documentation on Voice of the Child blog, which (it was said) was the pathway document obtained by them from CAFCASS. But those documents were dated December 2016 and looked more like training tools and a handbook than a “pathway”. And what’s more, they didn’t say what was reported by the Guardian either (CAFCASS confirm that these are not the pathway, but are current CAFCASS training materials, which are due to be revised before the Pathway is finalised and rolled out).
On 22 November CAFCASS finally published some information about the pathway, but without referring to the Guardian article. It did not match the scheme as described by the Guardian, and there was no attempt to directly address that article. By this stage we were really confused.
So we emailed CAFCASS, made a FOI request for a copy of the pathway, and suggested to them that better still, they should publish it in the interests of clarity and transparency. Almost immediately, CAFCASS responded offering a conference call with Sarah Parsons to help answer our questions. The resulting interview of Sarah Parsons is the basis of the explanations we offer here.
On 30 November CAFCASS CEO Anthony Douglas published a blog post about alienation and the high conflict pathway. In it he talks again of a spectrum, of nuance, of “Poly-victimisation” and “omni-directional harm”, and says that “Powerful emotions like this can rarely be successfully channeled into linear case outcomes in court” (we don’t think he’ll be winning any Plain English awards). Again, the post does not directly engage with the Guardian article.
We asked Sarah Parsons how the pathway will dovetail with the existing court process (the Child Arrangements Programme), in decisions about whether or not allegations of domestic abuse require a fact-finding hearing before the case can be moved on, and how it will dovetail with the existing domestic abuse pathway. (We’ve raised concerns before about the muddling of the judge’s fact-finding role with CAFCASS’s “evidence informed practice” see here and here and here). Parsons told us that one of the reasons the pathway is not ready for publication is because this issue – of the stage at which a case is appropriate to be put on a particular pathway – is still under development. Although early in our discussion, Parsons said that CAFCASS will be “really careful to discount the pathway where there is violence and therefore potentially a justified rejection of a violent parent by a child”, later in our interview she specifically said that the two pathways are “not mutually exclusive as there may be elements of both [domestic abuse and conflict/alienation] in a single case, or new evidence could emerge in the course of a case that leads to a decision to go down the other pathway”.
We were left with the distinct impression that, at present, CAFCASS just don’t know the answer to when and how they are going to be using this tool, or where it will interlock with judicial decision making and case management functions, or with other pathways.
Although Hill reported that “the guidelines…were sent out at the beginning of this month to judges, lobby groups including Families Need Fathers, experts, doctors and lawyers for a three-month consultation”, CAFCASS told us this is incorrect and that no information has yet been sent to stakeholders about the pathway because it is still a work in progress. However, invitations to stakeholders to focus groups are imminent (we are assured that The TP will be invited). CAFCASS are at pains, by the way, that we tell you that the “consultation” is voluntary and not a formal consultation (a gesture of goodwill, if you like). Indeed they have updated their post to say so.
What has been sent to the judiciary is information about the CAFCASS Positive Parenting Programme pilot (PPP), which is already underway. Parsons tells us that this is a four session intervention to be delivered by CAFCASS guardians in 50 cases that are identified as “stuck” in conflict, where a child’s CAFCASS guardian (possibly with a co-worker) will work directly with both parents and child to help them to listen to the child and deliver a positive co-parenting message to the child from both parents. Although it uses therapeutic techniques, it is not “therapy” as suggested by Hill. (Parsons denies using the word “therapy” at all, but the distinction is one that not everybody would immediately appreciate). It will only be used where all the participants agree. Although it is anticipated that participants on the PPP scheme will be identified through the High Conflict Pathway, the intervention will not be appropriate in all high conflict cases. Indeed it will only be available in that minority of high conflict cases in which a guardian has been appointed by a judge. Parsons objects to us describing this intervention as “short” and to the Guardian’s description of it as “intense” (although we think Amelia Hill probably meant ‘intensive’, rather than ‘intense’), leaving us wondering how different it really is from the way many guardians used to work before they were so heavily restricted in the direct work they were once permitted to do with families.
Information from CAFCASS about whether or not the pathway is already in use in conjunction with the PPP is contradictory. Parsons told us it was not, but when we pointed out that the 22 November news item on the CAFCASS site said the pathway had been in use since 1 November she told us that needed to be reworded as it was “not as clear as it could have been”. That item now says :
From 1st November 2017, practitioners from the internal advisory group have been using the ideas from the pathway as part of its ongoing development. They have not been using the proposed new assessment tools. These will not be in use until after external stakeholders have had the opportunity to feed in their views and after the full training programme that will accompany the formal launch of the pathway.
[our emphasis, highlighting newly appearing information].
So CAFCASS are using the ideas from the pathway but not the tools for the pathway, but yet feedback from practitioners who have used the pathway will be collated by February. And the PPP Pilot is happening now, and apparently “Use of the High Conflict Practice Pathway will help practitioners to identify cases which might benefit from [it]“.
We’re still confused. It sounds a little bit as if CAFCASS are using the unfinished pathway in an ad hoc way to support the pilot of the PPP, but do not wish to say they are doing so, because they have yet to consult.
So, what about all this stuff about the Pathway spelling out when children should be taken away from one parent and moved to another? Parsons told us that this is all wrong and that the journalist has misunderstood what she told her. It appears that in response to a question about what happens if the pathway does not lead to a resolution, Hill has extrapolated from Sarah Parsons’ explanation of the current caselaw around the instruction of experts, the possibility of a change of residence as a last resort and the use of care proceedings to enable that – and has formed the understanding that the pathway itself would incorporate these steps.
Subsequent to our substantive interview however, Sarah Parsons told us that “the High Conflict Pathway will provide guidance on the very rare circumstances that Cafcass FCAs may consider making this recommendation to the court. Its inaccurate to say the Pathway will not include this- it will. This again is much needed addition to current guidance”. Without wishing to be repetitive, we’re confused again. What this probably means is that the pathway will highlight the possibility of a change of residence as a recommendation that might be made by CAFCASS, and will set out when that might be appropriate – but until we see the pathway this is merely an assumption. Hill clearly formed the view that this would be prescriptive, but like us she probably hasn’t seen the document either.
Sarah Parsons told us that when she gave the interview to Amelia Hill she had no idea that the intention was to run a front page splash. She told us that she had stuck faithfully to a script in that interview (we can see echoes of that script in the Westminster Dialogues, the quotes in Hill’s article and Anthony Douglas’ blog post), no doubt because CAFCASS are acutely aware that parental alienation is itself a high conflict area and it is easy to get in a tangle and end up criticised by one lobby or another. Parsons told us that she was pleased to be able to speak to us to explain how her words had been over-interpreted and things had been oversimplified in the article. She was emphatic that CAFCASS want to be “absolutely transparent” but want to get as wide feedback as possible before publication of the pathway. “One of our aims is to be transparent, so people know how we will assess – it can be scary for many people. People will be able to read it and know where they stand. It’s not just about alienation – it’s a High Conflict Pathway which is much broader”.
The Hill interview request arose (we now understand) from a speech given by Anthony Douglas at a Parental Alienation Workshop in October, where he spoke about alienation and mentioned the pathway (see the video on the VoC post linked to above where Douglas can be seen to hold up a document marked draft high conflict pathway). As a result, CAFCASS found themselves with a request for an interview about what that pathway entailed, which they agreed to participate in. This may well not have started life as a front page article, but no doubt the description of the pathway as “groundbreaking” by Sarah Parsons (a description she accepts she used) coupled with mention of the removal of children from “target parents” has propelled the story up the priority list and facilitated the sort of headline that will have induced anxiety amongst many parents, particularly those who are worried that allegations of alienation can be used by abusive and controlling parents as a way of manipulating proceedings and intimidating their ex partners. It is clear that CAFCASS recognise this risk, but that message has been obscured in the Guardian piece. Parsons clarifies her use of the term groundbreaking by explaining that the bringing together of tools and process into one document is groundbreaking, but that there has been no radical shift in the approach of CAFCASS to issues of abuse, alienation or conflict. This is a message which appears to have been entirely lost in translation (notwithstanding the inclusion in the piece of the quote about nuance and centre ground).
It is unclear quite how the nature and state of this new project has all got so garbled and jumbled up in the article, and perhaps more concerning that CAFCASS seem to have been unable in their subsequent communications to proactively explain the position. Clarity has clearly been hindered by the inability to refer to source material. Given how inaccurate the Guardian front page now appears to have been (whether by fault of the journalist or CAFCASS we do not know) we are surprised that CAFCASS have not taken steps themselves to correct or clarify the article more effectively – perhaps by writing to the newspaper or asking for a space to respond, or by publishing a piece on their own site directly referring to the piece, linking to it and explaining what is wrong or unclear. Giving an interview to The Transparency Project is not really an answer to this – we are not a proxy for the CAFCASS Comms department (although requests for us to “say something constructive about this” suggest they have misunderstood how we operate). We will not be co-opted to anyone’s agenda.
What’s more, it is unfortunate that for all their protestations about transparency CAFCASS have declined to provide us at this time with a copy of the (draft) Pathway or to publish it, pending the focus groups they promise to hold soon. “It all blew up too soon for us”, says Parsons. “It isn’t ready to share… The stakes are high”. Indeed they are.
Parsons protests that “we are clear the developments will not result in any draconian approach or in us over stepping the mark in court. The impact will be the opposite in that the guidance and training will raise understanding and quality of practice, as we’ve seen with the DA Pathway. There is a danger of people applying labels such as PA and DA inaccurately and the pathway will help to avoid this.”
Such a statement will inevitably disappoint those who were pleased to see CAFCASS were apparently finally getting tough on alienation. But in the current context such statements are going to do little to reassure those worried that the pathway (as reported) would represent a wrong turn : The inability to scrutinise and properly understand what CAFCASS is planning in such a contentious field is highly unfortunate. Reassurance is urgently needed. We would again invite CAFCASS to publish the Pathway now – albeit in draft – in light of the ongoing confusion about the direction of travel.
We will do our best to participate in any focus group to which we are invited on this topic (subject to having a body available to attend), and will publish a further post clarifying matters once we are able.
Feature pic courtesy of Alexander Baxevanis (flickr – creative commons licence). Thanks!
Families Need Fathers have been raising the issue of Parental Alienation with Cafcass for a considerable time. We are pleased that they appear to be taking it more seriously, that they attended a conference our Central London branch organised on the subject (see: https://fnf.org.uk/fnf-call-for-parental-alienation-training) and feedback given during the Westminster Only Mums/Only Dads event.
Based on the feedback we had from Sarah Parsons we prepared a press release that resulted was picked up on in The Guardian story along with further comments from Cafcass (see: https://fnf.org.uk/news-events-2/press-releases/150-press-releases-2017-archive/437-cafcass-taking-parental-alienation-seriously-at-last).
As you say above, it is not Cafcass that make decisions, but as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the court and the ‘advisory’ service, for them to offer appropriate recommendations they need to have the skills to identify the problem, understand the range of solutions that might be effective and recommend them to the court.
Many questions and issues remain that need of addressed. For example:
– Many cases involving Parental Alienation, are not high conflict.
– A transfer or residents may not be appropriate if both parents are engaged in alienation.
– Tools need to ensure early identification of the problem.
– A focus on the worst possible cases may not be the most appropriate ‘trial’.
– Early intervention recommendations may well be better than ‘last resort’ ones.
– Interim measures may be appropriate in some cases.
– The nature and evaluation of any trials need to be carefully established.
etc
We are writing to Cafcass in relation to these issues and look forward to their response as well as further details of what it is that they actually propose.
I was on the suffering side of parental alienation . Even with doctors reports caffcas did nothing to help in front of the judge. I was just made out to be a liar
Kids for Cash UK’s analysts have used the Ministry of Justice’s own data (accessed via FOI) to evidence that a handful of large law firms are engaged in the pernicious exploitation of ex-parte Non-Molestation Orders to gain fast track access to legal aid and, with it, an order that cuts the tie between the non-resident parent and their children. The rise in the abuse of these orders is exponential.
Kids for Cash UK maintains that until such time as the police are instructed to investigate perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by lawyers and parents who seek to abuse domestic abuse related legal aid and family court fast tracks, one of the major root causes of orchestrated parental alienation will not change.
Superb analysis!
In response to a FOI request in very early 2016 Cafcass responded to say that they were developing a High Conflict Pathway. In December 2016 they launched (internally) the materials that we obtained through a further FOI request in 2017. They say that these training documents and guidance manual have been in use within Cafcass since December 2016 and are used to train FCAs in small face-to-face training sessions. They cannot tell us how many FCAs or how often this training has occurred.
During the Parental Alienation Workshop that you mention, and in direct response to questions from the floor, Anthony Douglas produced that draft document but did not go into any details within the document.
We immediately asked Cafcass to confirm who was authoring the pathway, what basis would it have, and who they were consulting with. They responded to say that it would be authored internally by their own employees and National Improvement Service team and that they would NOT be consulting with anyone externally. We (and others) protested loudly, and Cafcass then issued a statement saying that they WOULD be consulting externally and that they had issued a consultation document to parties.
We again asked for details on who they are consulting with and for a copy of the draft document. That was on November 20th. We are yet to receive a reply.
Our concerns are similar to yours:
1. Cafcass do not have decision making powers and yet we believe that, like their Domestic Abuse Pathway and various tools, they will try and assume these powers and their subsequent reports will reflect this de facto assumption. This cannot be good for justice or for the children and families involved.
2. Who is authoring this pathway and why are Cafcass so resistant to bringing in or consulting with external experts?
3. Cafcass say that their NIS team will be responsible for training. We have no confidence in Cafcass training. Indeed it is our question to Anthony Douglas about his training (or lack of it) that is featured in that video. We’ve recently published details of Sarah Parsons’ involvement in Cafcass training and that doesn’t fill us with confidence either.
4. We believe that Cafcass are in fire-fighting mode right now with PA. The pressure was mounting on them to say or do something and instead of approaching it in a measured, evidence-based, and methodical way, they have done exactly what they did when they were pressured on Domestic Abuse and have tried to rush out a half-baked solution.
It cannot be that the organisation responsible to Judiciary for producing professional analysis and recommendations in their reports on the future lives of children can think for one moment that this is an acceptable way to operate.
Thank you for continuing to raise this issue.
Rob
Voice of the Child
Research Team
It refreshing to the Tranparency Project is taking a challenging role in this debate. We see many mothers trapped in the PA/S catch 22 situation (talking about abuse is a ‘symptom’/’sign’ of PA) who are victims of domestic abuse or their children of child abuse and we are extremely concerned about the continuing use of this model by the courts..which they have been using since the 1980s despite their claim this is all new to them. The issue of abuse and abusive type personalities is not understood by most court professionals, resulting in dangerous and unjust decisions. Cafcass seem to be in chaos yet they are allowed to make life changing recommendations about childrens lives. They have made too many mistakes, some ending in the deaths of children. The issue of using so called ‘therapists’ who claim to be experts in PA but are approved by any respected psychology body, also urgently needs reviewing. A question we’d like to ask is..why are a father rights group being consulted and involved in the changes regarding domestic abuse but no mothers group is consulted? As a group of domestic abuse victims whose members find accessing any voice in the family court system (growing rapidly at around 50 new members a week since starting six months ago), we would like to be consulted and contribute to finding solutions to this very urgent problem.
Hi Erica
Sorry to hear that you’re finding it difficult to have your voice heard in the Family Justice system. You ask a very interesting question though – ‘why are a father rights group being consulted and involved in the changes regarding domestic abuse but no mothers group is consulted? ‘ I’m not entirely sure I understand quite what you mean? Were you confusing this with the MoJ announcement about Legal Aid made today https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/04/moj-scraps-legal-aid-restrictions-for-victims-of-domestic-violence?CMP=share_btn_tw
Interestingly there doesnt seem to be much representation from ‘Father’s Groups’ in those discussions……
Ahhh another woman who puts women’s rights above the emotional welfare of the child. I don’t like your tone or the implication that PA is a figment of the imagination.
Each case needs to be taken on its own merits. There are controlling men who abuse but there are also disordered controlling women who make false allegations/abuse. Psychological assessment up front with full support for the child is the only way to get to the truth.
And if you want to play the death card… children have also died in the past because courts have ignored fathers concerns about mother’s. This is not a gender issue this is a child protection issue and the sooner people concerned with women’s rights understand that the better.
To use a bit of PA jargon, this excellent piece caused more than one cognitive dissonance.
Sarah Parson’s ‘protested’ that:.
“we are clear the developments will not result in any draconian approach or in us over stepping the mark in court. The impact will be the opposite in that the guidance and training will raise understanding and quality of practice, as we’ve seen with the DA Pathway. There is a danger of people applying labels such as PA and DA inaccurately and the pathway will help to avoid this.”
Firstly, there does seem to be a misunderstanding here regarding how, compared with Cafcass, most of us perceive the severance of a relationship between a parent and child. I’m sure the president of the family division would agree as this is what he had to say earlier about this issue. In Re C (care proceedings: disclosure of local authority’s decision making process)[2002] EWHC 1379 (Fam) at 150, Munby J (as he was then) observed:
‘…it must never be forgotten that, with the State’s abandonment of the right to impose capital sentences, orders of the kind which judges of this Division are typically invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge in any jurisdiction is ever empowered to make.’
The order under consideration in Re C could sever, suspend or even terminate a relationship between a child and their parents, any siblings and the wider family, possibly for ever. Having children or families effectively taken away by the state, perhaps permanently, are consequently amongst the most draconian sanctions available to the legal system in the UK and in the view of Munby J second only in severity to the death penalty.
When a parent unilaterally takes it upon themselves to sever a child’s relationship with another parent it is no less distressing, impactful or draconian than if it were done by the state. For many parents and children the family court provides the last and only available alternative route to maintaining a relationship with one’s children. And for the children it represents their only opportunity to be freed from emotional abuse and the manipulative clutches of an alienating parent. The opportunity to be influenced by a normal range parent is lost. Sadly, Cafcass do not appear to appreciate that the whole business of PA is about a gross imbalance of power and that the actions of an alienating parent are themselves draconian and so is the all too frequently observed failure of the courts to tackle these cases effectively. For those at the receiving end of alienation the ‘conflict’ narrative is therefore a gross oversimplification and shameful mischaracterisation of the emotional abuse of children and the coercive control of a parent to lazily caricature the lived experience of thousands of families as two conflicted warring parents.
Secondly, a little while ago Sarah Parsons trumpeted the virtues of evidence based practice in this very blog and also in the Family Law Journal. Yet, as with Anthony Douglas’s incoherent musings quoted above, the whole basis for Cafcass decision making and, I would have hoped, their policy making too, seems to have gone out of the window. Where is the evidential basis for their most recently quoted and rushed press items or have cafcass yet to find one that will excuse doing virtually nothing about PA since Wall J acknowledged it as ‘…a well recognised phenomenon’ in 2003? Doesn’t such an inordinate delay in reacting to judicial findings and cherry picking what issues need developing also provide evidence of cafcass ‘overstepping the mark’ ?
Thirdly, it is now 34 years since Latey J noted intractable hostility and Anthony Douglas has been at the helm since 2004. How can an executive body of the state be allowed to ignore the impact of a burgeoning body of jurisprudence upon its practice and its statutory duty to safeguard children?
Fourthly, PA is frequently acknowledged in the literature and in judgments as a mental health issue. Where is the evidence base for Cafcass deviating from research and judicial findings?
Fifthly, FCR’s are widely regarded as experts in the family court. Other experts have to disclose the extent and limitations of their expertise in their reports. Why don’t Cafcass and why do they routinely comment upon areas which are outside their area of expertise and training?
Cafcass still clearly do not get it. As this article elucidates, they have not learned from their mistakes and do not seem to understand just how sullied their reputation and their credibility have become.
Men’s Aid was understandably cynical about the Guardian’s buoyant claims that CAFCASS had renounced their long involvement in encouraging and supporting Parental Alienation and had instead adopted a plan to counter it. It comes as no surprise that they are recanting their position and seem to have adopted yet another fudging solution that suits their own ambitions to be seen to be doing something rather than correctly identifying and meeting the needs of the child. [edited] It’s hard enough trying to identify the features of their ‘pathway’ yet alone thresholds or application mechanisms. Typically for CAFCASS’ long history of jargoneering what appears to be most important to CAFCASS is that they have now developed a name for their approach that, as yet, has no substance albeit an innaccurate one. If they want to continue bandyng useless pithy slogans around it should of course be the Parental Alienation Pathway and not the High Conflict Pathway. As ever their point of embarcation is inherently flawed. As many commentators have pointed out PA is not always linked to high conflict and were it is we get into arguments about which is the cause and which is the effect.
Their reluctance to engage with the leading specialists in this area is again sadly predictable as is their pretence at consultation. I can confirm that MA have recieved no attempts to communicate on this topic at all. Nevertheless CAFCASS will often use us and FNF as a fig leaf for their misadventures by claiming that in general terms they often consult with us. Many have learned that ‘consultation’ is in fact a fruitless exercise in which they present us with graphs and flow charts explaining their latest blunders, listen very politely to us pointing out reality and then disappear having ignored us.
No matter how many lives CAFCASS ruin they will never accept the fact that they are a fundamentally flawed and failing operation. Unfettered by the free market forces that would have seen them disappear within a year of their inception if they were a private enterprise they constantly wheel out more and more schemes aimed to justify their existence and broaden their sphere of activities and this is no exeption. Once again they seek to glide effortlessly past the true experts in this field and pretend to expertise they simply don’t have.
The only certainty that appears to feature thus far from their stated intentions is that it will be punctuated by yet another pointless and ineffective ‘awareness course.’ CAFCASS loves these misconcieved courses (all of which have motivational names) and recommends them relentlessly to Family Courts without any indication that they actually work and plenty of evidence to suggest that they don’t. In so doing a host of false prophets gravitate to the feeding frenzy and make handsome profits providing these pointless courses and bleed parents dry. Mythologies are perpetuated and the carousel goes round and round. The glaring truth is that if a course of the kind they are suggesting to help the alienator actually worked then the leading experts in this field such as Karen Woodall, Sue Whitcombe and Darren Spooner would be employing them but of course they don’t because they know that the mental hygeine problems that cause parents to alienate children cannot be reversed by sprinkling magic moondust on them. The focus for these practitioners is the child and not the alienating parent.
Expect nothing from CAFCASS exept more being seen to be doing something and justifying the huge budgets they recieve for ruining lives. They remain self serving and are not child focused. This topic is simply yet another example of them never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Men’s Aid – We’ve slightly edited your comment to remove personal remarks about individuals.
Parental Alienation is domestic violence, so it is quite confusing when they talk about “We must be extremely careful not to categorise a situation as parental alienation when domestic abuse is the cause of justified rejection.” My website contains references supporting the notion that parental alienation is domestic violence.
By no stretch could it be described as violence. The dictionary definition of violence:
violence
ˈvʌɪəl(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1.
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
“violence erupted in protest marches”
synonyms: brutality, brute force, roughness, ferocity, fierceness, savagery, cruelty, sadism, barbarity, barbarousness, brutishness, murderousness, bloodthirstiness, ruthlessness, inhumanity, heartlessness, pitilessness, mercilessness; strong-arm tactics; rareferity
“there had been widespread fears of police violence”
forcefulness, force, full force, power, powerfulness, strength, might, savagery, ferocity, brutality, destructiveness
“the violence of the blow”
parental alienation is EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE and the manipulation can have a physical element also. It is Domestic Violence – towards the victimised parent (and extended family) and the children.
Einstein stated it best, ‘if you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough’
Cafcass still don’t follow the DA pathway when father is victim & mother is resident parent!
Our FCA doesn’t even know the signs of PA to be able to recognise it & questioned in s7 whether PA even existed as a concept! I have no confidence whatsoever in them being able to train & then recognise & then act upon PA
The plot thickens further today:
We asked: I have been informed that consultation packs on the proposed High Conflict Pathway have been sent out to various external parties. Please provide a list of any and all external parties that you are consulting with on this new pathway.
Cafcass replied:
As the pathway is a Cafcass tool there will not be a formal consultation on the pathway. Cafcass are planning to contact a range of stakeholders, such as the judiciary, lawyers, academics, therapists, and men’s and women’s groups to set out clear information about the process for obtaining feedback. However no groups or external parties have been contacted yet in regards to their views on the pathway.
We asked: Please provide a copy of the consultation pack.
Cafcass replied:
Cafcass has not produced a consultation pack for the High Conflict Pathway as Cafcass is not having a formal consultation on the pathway.
Thanks for this. The Transparency Project have not received any pack, although we were assured we would be on the list.
There are many, many stories from the UK and worldwide on https://www.facebook.com/TheWomensCoalition/ of desperate mothers who have lost their children to abusive fathers. Despite what some claim, the patriarchal system is very often handing children over to fathers and not believing the mothers. It’s very sad. Not saying there are not a minority of false accusations of parental alienation but I think those are very, very small numbers. So to write a whole policy which will affect everyone and be misused by abusers, is very worrying.
Women tell lies and are abusive too you know. It’s not a gender issue. Women can be control freaks and stop good fathers from having access to their children too.
A new framework is required and quickly getting to the truth of which parent is causing the problem, and it may be both, is the only just thing to do. The current court process does not do that it allows allegations to be made without proper investigation and there is no psychological profiling of the parent/child. Worse there is no emotional support for the child while this long drawn out farce plays out.
I’m always amazed to see women coming out waving the domestic abuse flag like it trumps child emotional harm. Lets not help thousands of children experiencing emotional harm because there are a minority of vile men who beat women. Yes makes sense… not.
Domestic violence is wrong, parental alienation is wrong. One does not make the other less important.
oh come off it – it is damn obvious when children reject a parent alienation from the other parent will most certainly be playing a part – I know kids that have run away to be back with a PROVEN abuser – kids do not reject parents without alienation.
This is about a possible policy which could have serious results for children’s futures. To compare some recommendations (facts taken from real recommendations, but made generic):
1. Mum receives three bombastic messages from Dad. CAFCASS recommend no contact with Dad whilst this ‘domestic abuse’ by Dad is investigated.
2. Dad receives threats of violence and dozens of aggressive communications from Mum. CAFCASS recommend that children live with Mum.
3. Mum is violently assaulted by Dad, CAFCASS criticise Mum for not speaking positively to children about Dad.
4. Dad is stabbed by violent Mum and CAFCASS refer to social services due to poor communication between parents, recommend children live with Mum.
I understand that 97% of CAFCASS recommendations are followed. One wonders why.
CAFCASS is a not fit for purpose service which in my extensive experience prioritises policy over children’s welfare. Far from being unbiased professionals reporting to the Court, they appear to exacerbate difficult situations and cause damage to children by incompetence.
I have yet to speak to a child who feels that they were listened to by CAFCASS.
“I have yet to speak to a child who feels that they were listened to by CAFCASS.”
I’m afraid this is so very true,
Cafcass do it on purpose – you have to be cluster b to be able to work at Cafcass long term and they support all the cluster b abusive parents. This is my experience of 4 years in the Courts. A National disgrace Cafcass and the whole system should be disbanded especially the family law solicitors (utter parasites) and replaced by a panel of ‘Judges’ (not just one that is constantly changed) – if any s.7 or investigations are required it should be given directly to the LA Social Services who would receive the extra funding of getting rid of Cafcass.
This is correct.
Cafcass are disgusting. Every officer, male and female, is biased, unaccountable, and when they ruin so many lives, clearly abusive also. I was last allowed to see my child two years ago. State sponsored kidnapping in action.
Cafcass, the family court and a corrupt and now retired-in-disgrace judge, essentially stole my child. They refused to enforce their own orders, they refused to listen to the child, they refused to listen to me or consider evidence despite years of proceedings. They are corrupt from top to bottom and the London office is the worst. Spiteful, unprofessional, incompetent, ignorant, inept and callous.
They ruined mine and my children’s lives and they do the same to others every day.
There is always plenty of talk about parental Alienation but not a word about Social workers who do the same thing when contact is stopped during court proceedings etc.
Social workers are lying to children telling them their parents dont want to see them anymore, then they tell the parents the same thing, your child/children dont want to see you anymore. even NYAS are prevented from speaking to the child to prevent the truth coming out how the LA have unlawfully severed the contact with all family members. this is child abuse and children are suffering psychological harm as a result yet nobody is looking at this or even talking about it. Why ?
Where is your evidence for this Dr Manhattan? It is a pretty serious allegation. Are there any examples of social workers doing this in individual cases that you can point us to?
3 years ago I asked the SENCO to ask the ed ps y for help with Parental Alienation, she never heard of it!!!k I have recently been through this mockery of our police, legal, education, social care, MARU, CAMHS systems. Not one of them have helped and even “defendIng” and enforcing my sons decision not to see me for over 10 wks. My son still resides with his alienating father after winning residency and after Just 1 wk refuses to see me again, despite a court visitation order. But have serious doubt that my solicitor who told me I was the one who chose to stay in an abusive relationship will have any comprehension of the complexity of ABPA. The section 7 report was completely bias and to a highly trained professional should have been perceived as an affidavit of intergenerational trauma and persecutory delusions etc..but yet again another “professional” chose to enforce this delusion ignoring all evidence i produced to the contrary.
What a Joke – CAFCASS enable Parental Alienation and the corrupt secret family courts turn a blind eye 99 times out of a hundred (if the Applicant has paid lots of money to a solicitor who has the Judges ear).This ‘PATHWAY’ nonsense is a charade to pretend the family courts are ethical and moral. Until you experience family court you will not believe it PURE CLUSTER B MANIPULATION EVIL the children are the last thing they care about.