Alienating Behaviours in family proceedings and the recent case of Re Y [2026]

What is parental alienation?

In Re C (Parental Alienation; Instruction of Expert [2023]), Sir Andrew McFarlane adopted the definition provided by the Association of Clinical Psychologists that “parental alienation” is not a diagnosable syndrome. It is therefore not correct to say that one parent is ‘guilty’ of parental alienation. Instead, it is a process of manipulation by one parent against the other using what are termed as “alienating behaviours”.

What are alienating behaviours?

In order to be satisfied that alienating behaviours have occurred within a family, a Court will need to satisfy itself that all three of the following elements have been established: –

1. The child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent or carer; and
2. The reluctance, resistance or refusal is not consequent on the actions of that parent towards the child or the other parent, which may therefore be an appropriate justified reaction by the child or is not caused by any other factor such as the child’s alignment, affinity or attachment; and
3. The other parent has engaged in behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted the child, leading to the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to engage in a relationship with that parent.

It is important to note that findings of alienating behaviours are rare. This is perhaps linked to research which has suggested that alienating behaviours which actually impact a child’s relationship with a parent is uncommon.

Justified rejection and attachment

The Court is alive to the fact that a child may withdraw from a relationship for a wide range of reasons. This could include harmful parenting, neglect or exposure to domestic abuse. They could have a genuine attachment to one parent and simply prefer spending time with them over the other, not due to negative associations but perhaps a personality difference, a previous lack of involvement or perhaps a new partner. Or they may wish to take control over their own lives or refuse time with one parent if it takes them away from friends or activities.

In short, not every reluctance shown by a child to see a parent is due to alienating behaviours, and all the circumstances must be considered.

It is quite common for alienating behaviours to be raised when allegations of domestic abuse have been made. In this case, it is extremely important that measures are put in place to prevent re-traumatisation and enable witnesses to achieve their best evidence.

It is for the parent alleging that alienating behaviours have taken place to prove this, and that the behaviour has led to an unjustified resistance to see and spend time with them. A guardian may be instructed to help the voice of a child be heard during Court proceedings.

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

A recent significant Judgment looked in detail at alienating behaviours and particularly, the use of unregulated experts.

In 2019, upon evidence of an unregistered psychologist (Ms Melanie Gill) and without the benefit of a fact-finding hearing on allegations of domestic abuse, the Court determined that two children (aged 12 and 9) had been alienated from their father due to their mother’s highly negative attitude towards him. As a result, a transfer of residence was ordered, and the children had no contact with their mother between 2019 and 2025.

So, what changed? It was argued that, following the initial decision in 2019, significant new evidence and information now existed to cast doubt on the earlier findings, namely the Judgment in Re C and the guidance issued by the Family Justice Council on alienating behaviours (outlined above). Particularly, the application referred to the guidance that unregulated experts should not be instructed on cases involving alleged alienating behaviours. Also, that fact finding hearings should take place prior to the direction of any expert evidence and should not be relied upon for the purpose of making such findings. The application further relied on previous criticism of Ms Gill within Re C and a further Judgment of P v M in 2023, in which she was also instructed as an expert.

The Judge reiterated the guidance of the Family Justice Council and the three elements of alienating behaviour as set out above. The Judgment also clarified that alienating behaviours will not be found where findings of domestic abuse are made which have resulted in a child’s “appropriate justified rejection”.

It is interesting to note that, in mid-2025, the Family Procedure Rule Committee proposed changes to the family Procedure Rules 2010 that only regulated experts may be given permission to provide reports in children proceedings. The proposed rule change has yet to be reviewed and so is not law as of yet. However, it is clearly in line with the guidance which already exists.

Notwithstanding this, the Judge went further in Re Y by provided firm guidance that permission should not be given for the instruction of a psychologist who is neither registered nor chartered.

Overall, it was determined that the approach taken in the initial decision in 2019 was “fundamentally flawed” and must be set aside. Particular reference was made to the instruction of an unregulated and uncharted “expert” and that it was imperative that any fact-finding hearing should precede expert evidence.

Whilst this ruling clearly came far too late for the mother of these two children, it will hopefully go some way in vindicating her position. The judgment also acknowledges the systemic “failure of the system to act, as it should have done, in discharging its responsibility to protect the children and to prioritise their welfare needs”. It is a warning to all of the risks of unregulated experts in children matters.

If you require further advice as to Children Act proceedings, or potential alienating behaviours, please contact a member of the Family & Matrimonial Team.