Re K (Children) (Powers of the Family Court) [2024] EWCA Civ 2
11 January 2024
Judges: Sir Andrew McFarlane, Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Mark Warby
“In a fact-finding judgment in August 2021 the court made strong findings against the
father of alienating, controlling and coercive behaviour.” The children had been moved from the father into a placement with the maternal family. The older child was separately represented.
17 January 2024
Judge: Emma Arbuthnot
Experts: Darren Spooner, instructed by the court. Valerie Phipps, instructed by the mother.
The judge found that the mother had deliberately alienated the two children throughout their childhoods. She made an order that the younger child, aged 15, must continue to have contact with his father until his 16th birthday, but rejected the father’s application for enforced contact to continue until his 18th birthday.
19 January 2024
District Judge Olivia Murphy
Alienating behaviours. The mother lied that the child was her husband’s, not the man with whom she had a short-lived relationship while married to her husband.
TRC (Father) v NS (Mother) (Extensions of Time; Composite Hearings)[2024] EWHC 80 (Fam)
Judge: Natalie Lieven
The judge ruled that a separate fact finding hearing was unnecessary, and that it was disproportionate to require two contact supervisors to supervise contact with the father.
9 February 2024
Judge: Ros Carter
The judge ordered publication of a fact finding judgment from March 2021, which had found the mother had alienated the children against the father. The father wanted the judgment published in order to counter “a ‘movement’ on social media and elsewhere which seeks to argue that ‘alienating behaviours’ (to use the Cafcass description) do not occur, and that it must only be the behaviour of the non-resident parent that is to blame, suggesting for example that suggestion may be raised to deflect from them being abusive, or some other reason.” The mother, children and guardian opposed publication.
Re M v F & Anor [2024] EWFC (34 (B)
14 February 2024
Judge: Owens
In a fact-finding hearing, the judge found the mother’s allegations of child sexual abuse unproven and the father’s counter allegations of alienating behaviours unproven.
Re: A and B (Children: Expert's Reports) [2024] EWHC 948 (Fam)
24 March 2024
Judge: Nicholas Cusworth
Judge McPhee had acceded to the father’s demand for a parental alienation expert to be instructed.
“The joint instruction directed was of a Dr. Mark Hardiman. His CV had been identified by counsel for the children by the r.16.4 guardian immediately before the hearing, and was preferred to the father’s proposed expert. Unfortunately, the CV was only made available to the mother at the door of the court, and she says, and I accept, that she did not have the opportunity to consider it until later. The CV was evidently sent to the court and the parties at 2.38pm on the day of the hearing. In it, Dr. Hardiman describes his ‘main interest’ as in ‘the assessment of families affected by high conflict post separation parenting and/or allegations of parental alienation’.
A letter of instruction was attached to the order. Dr Hardiman was to receive a copy of the entire court bundle, including the court’s prior judgments, save for a ‘schedule of findings of fact’ that had been prepared. The principal fact-finding judgment which underlay the process had concluded with a judgment as long ago as 22 February 2021, within which Judge McPhee had himself incorporated earlier findings made by DJ Sethi. Further findings were then made in a judgment on 18 November 2021. A ‘Revised and Consolidated Schedule’ was then prepared by the children’s solicitor incorporating those various findings. Although there were a number of specific findings going back over a number of years, their essence was that the father had behaved in ways that were controlling, manipulative and aggressive towards the mother. Whilst the mother was not always beyond criticism, despite feeling embattled by the father’s behaviour, she had nevertheless continued to promote the children seeing their father.”
Mr Justice Nicholas Cusworth allowed the mother’s appeal, saying there was no need for a parental alienation assessment as Mcphee had previously concluded the mother was not alienating the children.
GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 (B)
28 March 2024
Judge: His Honour Judge Middleton Roy
The mother was represented by Charlotte Proudman. The father was represented by Mr Hankinson through Dads Unlimited, a registered charity.
Man who raped his wife tried to convince court he was victim of domestic abuse, Hannah Summers, The Oberver, 27 April 2024
Abusive father’s attempts to manipulate family courts, Hannah Summers, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 27 April 2024
This judgment followed an earlier judgment:
Re GB (Part 25 Application: Parental Alienation) [2023] EWFC 150
Charlotte Proudman successfully argued that a parental alienation expert should not have been instructed.
Judge Middleton-Roy anonymised the lower judge. Journalist Louise Tickle tweeted: “This is really irritating me. I am now going to have to make an an application to the judge who allowed this appeal to allow the name of the lower court judge to be published.”
UK mother accused of alienating children from father wins appeal over psychological assessment, Hannah Summers, The Observer, 9 September 2023
Parental Alienation in Re GB, Michelle Uppal, Family Law Week, 11 October 2023