The case of Re S, an Appeal Court judgment in the UK in May 2020, was summarised in the judgment as follows –
In summary, in a situation of parental alienation the obligation on the court is to respond with exceptional diligence and take whatever effective measures are available. The situation calls for judicial resolve because the line of least resistance is likely to be less stressful for the child and for the court in the short term. But it does not represent a solution to the problem. Inaction will probably reinforce the position of the stronger party at the expense of the weaker party and the bar will be raised for the next attempt at intervention. Above all, the obligation on the court is to keep the child’s medium to long term welfare at the forefront of its mind and wherever possible to uphold the child and parent’s right to respect for family life before it is breached. In making its overall welfare decision the court must therefore be alert to early signs of alienation. What will amount to effective action will be a matter of judgement, but it is emphatically not necessary to wait for serious, worse still irreparable, harm to be done before appropriate action is taken. It is easier to conclude that decisive action was needed after it has become too late to take it.
Read the full Appeal Court Judgment here
The concluding sentence in this judgment, from the perspective of child protection is powerful and speaks of the need for preventative action in cases where children are at risk of alienation. The judgment as a whole, set a tone of decisive action within the family courts in the UK in which interventions such a residence transfer were recognised as necessary in order to protect children from harm.
Having been appealed, the case returned to the High Court. Originally due to be in front of the President of the Family Division, the case was heard by Mr Justice Williams whose judgment can be read here.
Whilst this judgement looks likely to be appealed, there are a number of significant points within it which demonstrate that the Judiciary in the UK have a firm grip on the management of such cases. For anyone who works in this field, this is to be welcomed because when the legal system interlocks with the mental health intervention, resolution for children suffering from non accidental injury to the mind, is swift.
The conclusions within this judgment offer clear guidance for anyone working in this field in terms of how the Court views the need to protect children suffering from alienation.
Point 63 is a clear statement of the Court’s view of the impact of alienation and the harm that enmeshment with a parent causes.
However, all of her views have to be assessed having regard to the fact that they are distorted by the prism of alienation. Her wishes and feelings are the subjective result of exposure to harmful beliefs and practices which have led to her alienation from her father and her enmeshment with her mother. She is nine years old. I do not consider it necessary to obtain any more up to date evidence of her views. Ms Ware is a highly experienced independent social worker who has acted as a children guardian for many years and I accept her assessment that seeking the child’s views would be likely to engender further conflict and distress for the child.
The outcome of this case was that the child was transferred to live with her father. As in some cases of transfer, it appears that the child returned to her mother after being collected by her father but the police were involved and the Judge did not change his position and thus the decision of the Court was upheld.
When cases are managed in this way, children who are enmeshed with the narratives of psychologically unwell parents, are protected as a first priority. The influencing parent is constrained which makes treatment of the split state of mind in the child possible.
Just as in non accidental physical injury, this is a child protection approach to case management which sets a precedent in the UK, as such it is to be welcomed.
Karen Woodall 
Dear Karen,
I hope you are well.
Thank you for posting this – as heartbreaking as it is to read – it is, sadly, many parents’ reality. And from my own personal experience; too late for my estranged daughter and I. Our right to family life, as mother/daughter was breached and remains to be the case.
Again, thank you for posting this.
Kindest regards,
Pam
LikeLike
Dear Karen
This is an interesting article. I made an application to Wolverhampton Family Court in March this year, for an enforcement of a CAO, that was set by the court in November 2015. My ex-wife has continually breached the order from day one. I have had very little contact with my two daughters now 15 and 13 years of age, over this period of time. I had regular fortnightly contact with my 11 year old son, up until January this year. In brief, my ex-wife has manipulated their young minds and they now do not want to visit me. The strange thing is, that when Cafcass interviewed all three of the children, not one could give any justifiable reason for cutting off contact with me. It seems that I am viewed as the stricter parent. When I say stricter, in no way do I mean in draconian way. I only ask them not to use their mobile phones at the dinner table and for them to hand them over to me, when they go to bed. I also try to restrict the number of hours my son spends on his Xbox, too, in favour of outdoor activities like cycling, walking and enjoying the pleasures of general family life. Unfortunately, my ex-wife sets no parameters and let’s them do as they please, which makes me seem like an ogre. Of course they don’t want to visit me if they can do anything they please while in their mother’s care. I am at my wits end and have given up hope of seeing my children in the short-term. I just hope that in the long-term they grow up to realise that I was a loving and caring father, who only had their best interest at heart. I feel the damage has already been done. It’s a very sad situation. I do hope that all judges in the family courts and the associated authorities, throughout the UK, are aware of the case, too! There are other factors involved in my case, such as my ex-wife’s borderline personality disorder and narcissistic tendencies, including alcohol and drug abuse, which Cafcass, and now hopefully the court, are aware of. I do agree though, that interviewing the children on more than one occasion, could lead to increasing the void between my children and I. It’s a difficult one, I just hope for my children’s sake, the court can make some sense of the situation and make some sort of agreeable decision.
Thank you for highlighting the case.
Best wishes
Scott
LikeLike
I have an FHDR on Tuesday but my ex has now decided to allege I raped her two days before to instigate a finding of fact and keep me alienated. Last time around it was that I was a pedophile.
She wouldn’t let me see my daughter outside of a contact centre until the coronavirus meant she could shield. Social Services have recommended overnight stays with me so it was never necessary.
She said I could only go out with my daughter if I had a Hazmat suit on 2 weeks a go but this weekend has been shoe shopping for my daughter on a bank holiday weekend. The list is endless.
I am hoping for a change of residency as it is the only hope my daughter has of having a fulfilling relationship with both parents. I just don’t see my daughter having a normal life unless this happens.
LikeLike