MK v FJ & XY (Composite Hearing: Alienating Behaviours), Re

XY, a little girl born on 1 February 2017, is the much-loved child of the parents who appear before the court. XY is 8 years of age and lives with her mother. She is subject to a number of applications in respect of her living arrangements and their consequences. Sadly, for XY this is already the second set of proceedings in her short life. XY is represented by a Rule 16.4 guardian Sophie Williams and counsel Ms Cave. The Guardian recommends that XY lives with her mother, a pattern of contact for her father and an s91(14) order for 12 months. The Guardian invites consideration of findings of fact so that XY has an idea of her lived experiences.

The applicant mother (“M”) is MK, represented by Mrs Thomas of counsel. She seeks residence and has put forward a structure of contact. She suggests that there be an s91(14) order for 3 years, rather than 12 months. M opposes any findings of alienating behaviour on her part. She denies any suggestion of alienating behaviours.

The first respondent father FJ (“F”) is an LIP, assisted (remotely) by his McKenzie Friend Jennie Brownbill (“JB”) and an intermediary from Communicourt. F’s position has developed as the trial unfolded. F no longer opposes XY living with M but seeks a deferred change of residence. He agrees with the Guardian’s proposed pattern of contact. F seeks findings that M has alienated XY from him, that caused XY emotional harm and M has a history of disguised compliance and is not open and honest with professionals.

The parties met in 2015. There is some dispute about the extent of the parties’ involvement, but it is common ground that it was short-lived, and the parties did not cohabit. XY has always lived with M, and from the age of about 5 weeks, had the involvement of M’s former partner in a parental role. F is on XY’s birth certificate and has parental responsibility.

In 2020, F applied to court. The first set of proceedings concluded at DRA with a consent order on 21 April 2021. Both parties were represented by counsel. It is important to note not only the arrangements that were put in place by agreement but also the lack of mention of both alienating behaviours and F’s functioning.

M applied to court in May 2022. She sought a change in arrangements due to XY’s refusal to get out of the car for contact. In her C1A, she said that F does not appear to have the required parenting capacity to adequately care for XY when she is in his care. She alleged that F had threatened to turn up at her address. M has appeared in person until the pre-trial review. F has been in person with a McKenzie Friend.

I shall highlight only a few of the many orders and hearings. The case was originally before the Justices. By the time of the Justices giving their facts and reasons on 20 September 2022, XY was said to be happy again with contact and M was willing to see how overnights go. F alleged alienation. The Justices refused F’s application for a fact-finding hearing. His appeal was refused by HHJ Gargan on 29 November 2022.

The Justices heard the case again on 8 December 2022 and ordered an s7 report. M applied to court again on 16 December 2022 following an alleged safeguarding issue. Her application was followed by F’s application to enforce and for a Rule 16.4 guardian. Recorder Butland appointed Mr Fright as guardian on 20 January 2023. F withdrew his application to enforce. On 25 April 2023, the court directed a psychological assessment by Dr Burchess.

The matter returned to court on 4 October 2023 and was heard by Recorder Worton. The court again refused F’s application for a fact-finding hearing and approved a further assessment by Dr Burchess. F again sought to appeal. His application was refused by Henke J as being totally without merit.

There was a further hearing before DJ Sprague before the matter was allocated to me on 5 March 2024. I have heard the case several times and on 16 January 2025, I took the view that a fact-finding hearing was necessary and proportionate. That was the view of the newly allocated guardian Ms Williams.

I heard the composite hearing over 5 days. Both parents were much longer in evidence meaning that the case did not finish on time. I have received written submissions.

JB’s involvement in this case has been controversial. She has been subject to numerous applications by M to prevent her involvement, including in this hearing. I have allowed her to continue to assist F remotely so that he can participate fully.

The issues I have to determine consist of both facts and welfare. I must decide whether there should be a deferred change of residence, the levels of contact, s91(14) order and other consequential matters such as the use of a parenting app.

There is no dispute about the principles that I must apply. XY’s welfare is my paramount consideration. I must apply the welfare checklist, “no order” principle and presumption of parental involvement, if safe to do so. Any order I make must be necessary and proportionate. XY and her parents have Article 8 rights.

The principles I must apply in terms of fact-finding can be summarised as follows:

Practice Direction 12J (“PD12J”) must be applied if the parties fall within the definitions in Paragraph 2A.1. Where a party is vulnerable, FPR Part 3A and PD 3AA apply.

PD12J para 37A applies to cases where findings of domestic abuse are made, as does para 4A. The relevant law remains s91(14) and s91A Children Act 1989 and the cases of P v. F [2023] EWHC 2730 and Re B and K (Children: Contact Section 91(14) Orders [2024] EWFC 167. S91A(2) sets out the circumstances where an order may be made. It is a wide provision and the words “among others” means that the provision itself is not exhaustive. A period of respite and time for actions to be taken are two examples.

At paragraph 103 in Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345, the President adopted the ACP’s view and held that:

“The decision about whether or not a parent has alienated a child is a question of fact for the Court to resolve and not a diagnosis that can or should be offered by a psychologist. For these purposes, the ACP-UK wishes to emphasise that “parental alienation” is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, but a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through, what are termed as, “alienating behaviours”. It is, fundamentally, a question of fact”.

“What is important, as with domestic abuse, is the particular behaviour that is found to have taken place within the individual family before the court, and the impact that that behaviour may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both of his/her parents. In this regard, the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ should be the court’s focus, rather than any quest to determine whether the label ‘parental alienation’ can be applied”.

The subsequent Family Justice Council guidelines expand upon Re C in their paragraph 10. A court has to be satisfied that three elements are established before it could conclude that alienating behaviours have occurred. They are:

Courts are reminded that a child may withdraw from a relationship with a parent for a variety of reasons. A child may come to their own conclusions. They may show alignment with one parent or prefer to spend time with the other, absent a strong view. The 3 A’s can result in the 3 R’s without any alienating behaviour. A court must avoid ‘default’ findings.

F cites Re M (Emotional Harm: Parental Alienation) [2024] EWHC 1184 (Fam) and Re H (Children) (Contact: Domestic Abuse/Violence) [2023] EWCA Civ 874. I cannot find any case that matches either citation. F has responded and provided some links. These links are to Re HN and articles on the topic but not the cases cited. I have considered the other cases he relies upon.

In Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 1467, the CA confirmed that where a parent persists in disobeying an order for the other parent to have contact with the children, the court may order the transfer of the living arrangements of the children but suspend the operation of the transfer upon the obdurate parent complying with the order.

In Re L (A Child) [2019] EWHC 867 (Fam), the President warned against moving the focus of the decision-making away from the welfare of the child. The test is, and must always be, based on a comprehensive analysis of the child's welfare and a determination of where the welfare balance points in terms of outcome. I am also directed to the decision of HHJ Bedford (sitting as a Section 9 judge) in Mr MDR v. Mrs MDR (Suspended Residence Transfer – Parental Alienation) [2019] EWHC B61.

I have been directed to the Cafcass Alienating Behaviour Tool and the Cafcass guidance (Children’s Resistance or Refusal to Spending Time with a Parent).

I have a trial bundle of over 1,000 pages. I have heard oral evidence from both parents, W from Professional Body 1, H from Professional Body 2 and the Guardian.

The key pieces of documentary evidence are the reports of Dr B. He was not called to give evidence, and his reports are not challenged. Dr B first report is dated 8 August 2023. His conclusions are:

Dr B reported again on 27 December 2023. He noted that lack of opportunity that XY had had to develop her relationship with F. He recommended the use of a professional to coordinate a plan. XY did not assign any of the feelings either negative or positive towards F. She was not categorical and did not denigrate F. She did not use age-inappropriate language or repeat scenarios from M. XY’s reasons for not wanting to see F are rather weak and out of proportion with her reluctance to see him. The strength of XY’s relationship with M and M’s former partner does not prevent her from developing a strong attachment to F.

Dr B’s final addendum is dated 22 May 2024. His responses to questions are:

As to the key issue of alienating behaviour, Dr B says:

“As I have made clear in my previous reports it is not my opinion that XY is being actively alienated by her mother. It is important to recognise that not every withdrawal from a parent by a child is alienation. Sometimes the withdrawal is temporary, sometimes it is justified and sometimes it is a result of intolerable levels of cross projection of blame. In my opinion, it is the cross projection of blame that is causing XY to be reluctant to see her father”.

W is a psychologist and systemic practitioner at Professional Body 1. She spoke to her undated reports and timelines in the bundle, which I have read.

In her oral evidence, W said that she was not the author of the appendices. She is not good with dates. She has not met XY or observed contact. W said she knew F first. She was aware of his slow processing speed but did not know when she became aware. Professional Body 1 is adapted to children struggling with emotions. W agreed that Professional Body 1 was not yet as effective as Professional Body 2. Her approach has been very effective with F. M did not want to be asked questions. She described M as very family orientated, a very committed mother and XY was very committed to her. W showed M a slide of 17 alienating behaviours, making it clear that she (W) was not saying that it was going on. M interrupted and wouldn’t let W finish. M once asked for a recording of the session.

In response to F’s questions, W said that she uses a mixture of Professional Body 1 in classic form to raise parental presence of a rejected parent and [method] with the favoured parent who wants to rectify. It is a systemic approach based upon problem solving. W wouldn’t disagree with the Cafcass tool on alienation. She described M as obstructive and not wanting to engage. She is not someone who wants to learn or is open to discussion. M’s approach has delayed things. Her demeanour was derisive, scoffing and eye-rolling. She has backtracked and reversed. JB has been involved in F’s emails.

I did not find W to be a helpful or balanced witness. She was, by her own admission, poor with dates. She could not recall whether or not she had read the reports of Dr B, despite it being apparent in her own report that she had at least read the first report from Dr B. W spoke over people in court and seemed reluctant to allow the question to finish.

H spoke to Professional Body 2’s work and reports but has not filed a statement. I have read the reports.

In her oral evidence, H said that M is aware of her body language and is working on it. She has had counselling for her anxieties and is reflective. Contact has worked well and needs to continue at XY’s pace. H read Dr B’s report afterwards. M had trauma from an earlier relationship, so H took things slowly at first. M felt that her back was against a wall and that she was being interrogated. H saw a video session with W. It was an uncomfortable watch. H spoke of an occasion when within an hour of having coffee with F, she phoned to say that she had not been fair on F. M will naturally be shaking and it was not within her control. S (the second worker) described M as being very empathetic towards F. H felt that XY’s behaviour towards F can be explained by the 3 A’s.

H was cross-examined by F. Professional Body 2 do a lot of work around alienating behaviours. She originally worked in Children’s Services and has done systemic work. They have worked with families with clear signs. H said this case is not “cut and dried alienation”. M wants the relationship to be safe and healthy, and H does not think that M has put her views on XY. Working with so many people has become overwhelming. The Cafcass parenting tool needs to be used alongside the guidance. XY is more aligned with M. They have a close relationship. XY was initially quiet but can be rude to F. She warms to him. The 3 R’s are not present. H told F that XY was building her relationship with him, and it is a lot better than it was. Him being around her and learning cues has led to improvement. H found M’s position statement (on contact) to be quite upsetting. There have been reasons for XY's refusals.

I found H to be a clear and focused witness. She approached her evidence with a sense of balance and from the perspective of having provided the input that has allowed contact to take place.

M has filed statements and position statements in this case. Where signed with a statement of truth, I consider each to be a witness statement.

In oral evidence, M explained the impact of her previous relationship and how she and F met. She realised that they did not have much in common but was by then pregnant. She envisaged a co-parenting relationship and invited F over. He spent the first Mother’s Day with her. They also went to a baby photo shoot. F would see XY regularly, but he did not have interest. He would bring wood for the fire and walk straight past XY until reminded. F refused her offer of a meeting or mediation. Anything M said was viewed as negative. M denied rolling her eyes at Professional Body 1. She said W would not allow her to finish and would interrupt if she didn’t like the answer. The school decided to withdraw from Professional Body 1. M said that H had picked up on trauma. She was not aware that her body language comes across as defensive. When in a situation that is not automatically safe, she becomes defensive. She did not feel safe with Professional Body 1.

M does not believe that she has alienated XY from F. XY is thriving, has a thirst for knowledge and is confident beyond her years. From what XY tells her, she does not want to see F. It is important that she has a relationship with him, but pushing XY will be too much for her. F’s allegations of alienation have only come about when he is an LIP with a McKenzie Friend who holds herself as an expert in alienating behaviour. Any suggestion of disguised compliance is absolute nonsense. M said that she has concerns for F’s ability to parent XY for long periods of time due to his cognitive issues. He burns out after a period of time and looks exhausted. He doesn’t have experience of being a sole carer. His presentation suggests neurodiversity, “you can tell when something is wrong”. These proceedings have led to M having terrible anxiety. F’s statements have been defamatory and bordering on abuse. When the Guardian visited, M believed that the door was closed. The Guardian could have saved her questions from when XY isn’t there. M had pulled XY up on the way she speaks to F. F needs to work on his personal boundaries. He has hugged XY, tried to kiss M’s neck and grabbed S’s waist.

In response to F, M said she was scanned every month when pregnant. F came to one. They were not in a relationship and M felt uncomfortable with F being there as her body was being pulled about. M wanted her sister to have PR in case anything happened to her, not in place of F. She was a new mum and overthought it. There have been differences of opinion about contact but there has always been a schedule. It has been difficult to agree schedules. Midweek is too much for XY. F makes threats of alienation. F did not ask for unsupervised contact in the first 4 years and would happily meet M in the park. F wasn’t happy changing nappies. M asked for help and F wouldn’t leave the pub. M is not reluctant to build contact, it is how it builds. School is a safe place for XY. M did not support XY throwing F’s letters in the bin. XY was distressed. The letters did not help. XY said ‘you can’t force me’ in the context of F’s car. M was trying to ally with F as XY was being rude. M denied saying that F was unsafe.

M referred to F’s cognitive issues and undiagnosed slow processing. She said it was part of the autism spectrum. She wanted to make sure that F would be 100% safe. Dr B did not view F’s parenting. His report and that of S go some way to alleviate M’s concerns. M would like a heads up about other people coming to contact, not to vet them. The incident with F’s friend made XY feel unsafe. It was Professional Body 1’s report that said he was there. When M then asked XY, the floodgates opened. XY’s wishes are very much her own. Maybe she picks up on M’s anxiety. M said that she had been working on Teams, not eaten and was stressed. She asked XY if she was ok by the door, on her lap and in response to something. XY talks openly about F’s shortcomings. M attended 4 sessions of Professional Body 1’s work at a cost of £100 per session. Professional Body 2’s approach is gentle but firm. W was passive aggressive. It would be helpful if F could give M a brief description of what each contact will be.

M told Ms Cave that she does not have concerns about 11-5 on Saturday. She described F’s stress level as being like an elastic band. She thinks that F’s cognitive or neurodiversity is hindering his relationship with XY. it could be that she finds F’s communication difficult. He may miss questions. F has been flippant about what his role is. M felt bullied and violated by W. People step up, they don’t need to be told to. That didn’t come naturally to F. Her former partner is no longer there, and XY is starting to see the difference between them. Using “Daddy [F’s name]” isn’t false compliance, it is upsetting for XY.

Throughout her evidence, M mentioned F’s functioning many times. She referred to it variously as issues, limitations, neurodiversity and even “undiagnosed autistic traits”. She then linked these with F appearing to be exhausted at the end of contact and feared him burning out. Despite M’s recent positive actions, I was left with the impression that M understood the importance of XY having a relationship with F but would look for the slightest reason for contact to be limited. It was clear to the court that M could not move past what she sees as F’s limitations, despite Dr B’s evidence and the Guardian’s report. Parts of M’s evidence were dismissive and condescending.

I approach F’s statements in the same way as M’s. He confirmed his statements on oath.

In his oral evidence, F denied having limited engagement or needing to improve with XY. He needs to not get frustrated with M. Difficulties began when M lied to him about the first scan. M did ask him to look after XY on Fridays, but he had to work. He accepted attending the photo shoot and Mother’s Day. Contact was in the park. M offered video calls when contact ceased. She offered to meet several times. F declined as he didn’t know what narrative would come from M. The first scan “took his trust”. F said M had asked for £600 a month or she wouldn’t put F on the birth certificate, and he wouldn’t see XY. He accepted that is not in any statement. F agreed that M wanted him to be involved but that what went on says otherwise. Contact with XY on their own has always been good. Professional Body 1 suggested [venue]. Others have helped with emails. M has helped him engage. She tried to make the extra contact on 1 February work. F bumped into his friend at the ice rink. He has no idea why XY said what she did or why his friend was there as he didn’t have children with him. XY was not left with him. XY has never said that she wants overnights or more time. F said he did not raise alienation in earlier proceedings as he wanted to get arrangements. He thought that would be the end of it. M frustrates him. He is not asking for XY to live with him. F thinks M would say if XY wants overnights or more time. F described himself as old school when giving hugs. It is the “[F’s family surname] way”. He did not ask XY to give him a kiss.

F told Ms Cave that his slow processing is taking in literature. He is used to being a site manager and dealing with health and safety. He has travelled the world on his own. Children need love, emotional care and safety. F agreed with the Guardian about contact.

I found F to be a straightforward witness in the main. I did not detect any tiredness in the way that he gave evidence, beyond what might be expected from a full day in the witness box. F gave helpful and child-focused evidence when unencumbered by his network. His evidence about his friend was unconvincing, and, like M, he was not able to see past the trust issues he has had from the first scan. He was occasionally evasive in his answers to counsel, and it is easy to see why Dr B described F as becoming defensive when he thinks he will lose his autonomy.

The Guardian has filed an analysis dated 28 March 2025. She met XY at Professional Body 2’s office on 24 March 2025. The Guardian felt that some of XY’s responses were unusual for an 8-year-old and mirrored M’s views. XY would make direct blanket statements about her dislike for F and love for M but would then struggle to elaborate on what the issue is with F. She said she didn’t enjoy contact the day before, which is contrary to observation. XY described M’s former partner as being her real dad and spoke as if he was still at home. The Guardian is worried by XY’s loss of M’s former partner and wonders if it is impacting on how she views F. XY reframed a shared like of pranks as a negative. XY said she wanted to see F every week and then said she didn’t want to see him. When the Guardian took XY back to M, she noticed that she was shaking. The Guardian noted further odd observations for a child to make, especially about safety. XY said she was uncomfortable when F asked her for a kiss. The Guardian described M as listening outside the room on 21 June 2024 and saying things in earshot of XY. Referring to F as “[Name]” does not promote XY’s identity.

The crux of the Guardian’s evidence as to potential alienating behaviour is contained in her paragraphs 40, 47 and 48. They bear reading in full:

“From my discussion with H and S, XY’s presentation is described as similar within the direct work S has undertaken with her. I am deeply troubled that an eight-year-old little girl holds such negative views of her father and in my view without any merit. XY is half of her mother and half of her father so if she grows up feeling that her father is bad, this can have a significant impact on how she views herself as she grows older. I have myself witnessed M making unhelpful comments when XY is present. From my brief interactions with XY’s mother, she did not seem to fully grasp the importance of XY having a relationship with her father. I cannot help but wonder what conversations XY has been exposed to when professionals are not present”.

“From my direct work with XY, she appears to mimic a number of views and the language used by her mother. She also recalls events that in my professional opinion she would be unlikely to remember on her own accord. M tells me that XY’s views are her own, however XY has at times appeared somewhat scripted and her views are disproportionately negative about her father.

“Within the most updated Professional Body 2 report and through professional discussions, they too share a concern about the negative narrative XY holds of her father. Professional Body 2 state that “XY has expressed a strong dislike for F, which is notable given her young age. It is likely that she has been exposed to adult conversations from M or her social network, which may be influencing her perception of F. However, her stated dislike does not fully align with family time observations”. Professional Body 1 have also expressed concern in respect of this and have provided an in-depth chronology setting out some of the issues that have arisen”.

At paragraph 49, the Guardian sets out her use of the Cafcass tool and concluded that there are some signs of alienating behaviour. She writes that “quite unusually”, XY ticked every box in the alienation or implacable hostility tool. The behaviours in full [1019].

The Guardian does not believe that M has consistently wanted F to have a relationship with XY. M uses highly emotive language and expressive body language which would be unlikely to relieve XY’s discomfort and would make her aware of M’s emotional fragility. Being repeatedly asked if she is okay may give a subtle indication to XY that she is not safe. Not mentioning [Friend] for a month suggests that XY did not consider it to be an issue. The Guardian described the way M speaks to F is incredibly patronising, oppressive and at times abusive. M frequently brings up F’s processing difficulties but cannot make any allowance for it. That knocks F’s confidence and makes him defensive. M has given F helpful advice, but her tone has meant it is not well-received by F. Both parents appear fixated on past issues. The Guardian is deeply troubled by XY being exposed to potential alienating behaviour. Professional Body 2 are clear that the areas that F needs to improve upon are not safeguarding issues and do not prevent contact from progressing.

The Guardian noted the problems caused by the differing methods used by Professional Body 1 and Professional Body 2 when it comes to boundaries. F will quote phrases from Professional Body 1 and his mistrust of Professional Body 2 is a barrier to him making changes. The involvement of both is counterproductive. Professional Body 1 rely on reporting from F.

In her oral evidence, the Guardian explained her reluctance in seeking a fact-finding hearing (“FFH”). Both parents have contributed to the issues. The Guardian has had concerns about M’s conversations and body language over a long period of time. Contact should take place every Saturday and Sunday as soon as possible. If XY refuses, she shouldn’t be given a treat. The more she sees F, the more comfortable she becomes. Reducing contact will slow things down. The parents need a bit of a plan between them. XY needs to start feeling comfortable with M giving emotional permission. The Guardian does not agree with there being an s91(14) order for 3 years.

The Guardian told Mrs Thomas that she has not discussed domestic abuse with M. It does impact on her and how she presents. The Guardian has generalised it. Regardless of reason, “we have a little girl exposed”. Aside concerns about influence, M is a great mother. M’s comments to F make her uncomfortable. Being denied a relationship is long-term harm. The Guardian has noticed a shift in M’s engagement since her report was received. M will do things but there is a lot of debate and resistance. The Guardian has been in the property when M has made comments to XY. M will criticise F and then give him advice. From what the Guardian has observed, there were alienating behaviour present. A lot of what XY told her reflects M’s views. XY’s reasons for disliking F do not make sense. She puts a negative spin on positive memories when reminded of them. There is obvious fun that she does not accept. XY’s broken arm view is a trivial, false, weak and irrational reason. M’s reasons, such as being sick in the car, sleeping in a den on the floor and having a broken zip are unjustified and disproportionate reasons. The Guardian has heard M say the sleepover was forced.

The Guardian said that M’s focus on F’s learning needs is uncomfortable. Dr B says it doesn’t impact upon parenting. She reminded the court of M’s evidence when she said “you can tell straightaway something isn’t right”. It is bordering on abuse. The Guardian does not like F being portrayed as someone with quite significant learning needs. He gave clear evidence. M suggesting he gets tired is a new way to discredit him. The Guardian was disappointed with H’s evidence as some of it does not reflect the conversations they have had. Professional Body 2 cannot see why XY had issues. They use the term ‘influence’ rather than ‘alienation’. They have done direct work with M and would not have done that if they were not concerned. Professional Body 2 being the third service to raise influence may have forced M to engage. Professional Body 1 was doomed from the start. It was “a circle” with M asking what they do and why. The Guardian said that she is not saying that M is definitely using false compliance. She can be reflective and then defensive. M does not want to cause intentional harm. XY has suffered a loss from M’s former partner. M said the separation was nothing to do with the Guardian. It is absolutely relevant to tell professionals as the man XY called dad for the majority of her life is no longer in the home. F fixates on the past and is rigid. His correspondence to M has been unpleasant, blunt and unhelpful.

The Guardian told F that suspended residence would be pressure. The parties need to go away from proceedings and engage with services. She told the court that M’s application for an ISW set F back 10 steps. F struggles with a lot of information. He is very child focused. The second XY is upset, M protects her. That is not realistic in life. XY likes things her way. Whether she is upset or not, she should go. M has made XY aware of her fragility.

I found the Guardian to be a detailed, focused and compelling witness. Her evidence was balanced, and she has considered the case from the perspective of needing XY’s lived experiences to be known. She focused on her own observations that fed into the tool rather than the tool itself driving her evidence. The Guardian did not shift her view despite robust cross-examination.

Each party has filed helpful written submissions which I have read. F responded to my email to counsel to clarify some of the citations in his written document.

The issue of alienating behaviour is complex and emotive. In this case, the party alleging it is unrepresented. I do not consider that this father and all the positives that he brings has been well served by the repeated pushing of alienating behaviour as an agenda by his network or by his continuing adherence to Professional Body 1’s philosophy. F’s views in the witness box and then in submissions stand in contrast to each other. The parties have, to their credit, made progress with contact and come close to settling this case in the past. Those factors do not, of themselves, mean that alienating behaviour cannot or has not existed in this case.

Despite having a trial bundle of over 1,000 pages, I do not have a detailed schedule of proposed findings, final witness statements or a singular chronology. The court is left with 3 generic proposed findings, a mass of statements and position statements, redacted reports and emails that follow no pattern of timing. The court has been assisted by the oral evidence, focused cross-examination and written submissions. I include F in that assessment. His written questions, put to witnesses himself and to M by me, have drawn out important points. I must consider that oral evidence alongside the documentary evidence that I have and not elevate one type of evidence above another.

I do not place any weight on the statements attached to F’s many position statements. Not all are confirmed with a statement of truth and none of the witnesses have given evidence.

I have heard oral evidence from both professional bodies. Both also provide documentary evidence. W did not write the timeline attached to her statement but spoke to it. The following matters are relevant:

The following points are notable from the Professional Body 2 reports:

Professional Body 2 explicitly mention influence:

“XY has expressed a strong dislike for F, which is notable given her young age. It is likely that she has been exposed to adult conversations from M or her social network, which may be influencing her perception of F. However, her stated dislike does not fully align with family time observations” [1002].

“While a child's reluctance can be influenced by multiple factors (such as anxiety, loyalty conflicts, or past experiences), repeated avoidance may suggest other influences or underlying emotional distress” [1003].

One further difficulty in this case is that M is the victim of domestic abuse, but F is not the perpetrator. That has meant M’s PTSD being triggered but F being unable to relate as he himself was not the cause. This is important because M relies upon domestic abuse in her previous relationship as an explanation for her body language and where she submits that professionals (save Professional Body 2) have not taken it into account. Whilst I agree with Mrs Thomas that M is a victim of domestic abuse from her previous partner and that is relevant to how she presents, her past experience gives reason and understanding for some of her presentation rather than justification for any consequential impact upon XY. Professional Body 2 and M are aware that her body language is an issue and have undertaken work on it. At paragraph 55, the Guardian highlighted the need to understand the impact of M’s history and for F to be sensitive to it. She has discussed it with Professional Body 2. I do not consider that the professional evidence is undermined by its approach to M’s history.

Although it did not feature greatly in evidence before this court, the 2021 Cafcass report is an important document. Save for suggestions about F’s cognitive functioning, many of the issues before this case emerged in previous proceedings, albeit not with the same level of prominence. F did in fact raise concerns about alienation. M said that F was not attuned to XY’s needs, and she was concerned about alcohol use. The parties struggled to communicate and co-parent. The 2021 order is in many ways the starting point for this case. It sets out a plan for contact which was agreed by both parties. F was to be referred to as “Daddy [name]” and XY was to be told that he is her biological father. F said he would return XY if she became distressed during contact but also that he was to be trusted to decide that. Contact was to build up to half the holidays.

Ms Hanley described the parents as “strangers thrown into parenthood by chance”. They are also very different characters with differing expectations of each other. M evidently had high expectations of co-parenting from how successfully her sisters have done so with their respective ex-husbands. Co-parenting with a former spouse is likely to be very different to co-parenting with someone you barely know. Dr B noted F’s mistrust and how it impacts upon his ability to co-parent. M was not honest with him about one of the prenatal scans in 2017 and his resentment still underlines his case now. Ms Hanley warned that M’s management of contact could became alienating if she does not follow professional advice regarding contact and engage in co-parenting in a constructive matter.

Whether or not there has been alienating behaviour is a decision for a court, not an expert nor a guardian. It is open to the court to find assistance in the unchallenged evidence of Dr B, but any conclusion must be one for this court and based upon proper evidence, inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence, and with consideration of the FJC guidelines.

After meeting with XY and the parties in June 2023 and reporting in August, Dr B did not consider that M was alienating XY from F. He considered XY to be torn and rather ambivalent and her reluctance to see F stemmed from weak and nebulous reasons. M did not denigrate or vilify F. In his May 2024 report, Dr B said that the longer she is exposed to proceedings and conflict, the less likely she will want to see F. He did not consider M to be actively alienating XY from F. Dr B did not see the family after June 2023.

I do not consider that there have been alienating behaviours up to the time of Dr B’s report. His view is supported by M’s early attempts to involve F during pregnancy and afterwards. H gave her view about F’s early engagement with contact in the park. F’s own evidence and his questions to M suggest a reluctant acceptance of contact being as it was. F’s own approach to the 2021 proceedings tells me the same. Although he has obviously mentioned alienation to the then Cafcass officer, and she expressed some concern that it might arise in the future, he accepted a consent order that would lead to substantial contact.

Time moves on. Professional Body 1’s early work was helpful in getting contact back on track. Their work now is limited as they have not observed contact or had any involvement with M or XY. They are involved on a weekly basis with F and rely upon his reporting. Therein lies the problem. F openly uses his network with Professional Body 1, and they are plainly very much of the alienating behaviour mindset. Professional Body 1’s approach is in no way aligned with Professional Body 2, and it is Professional Body 2 who are involved with M, XY and the progression of contact now. The real issue is that Professional Body 1 support F and his way of thinking, and Professional Body 2 support M and hers.

To her credit, M paid for 4 and attended sessions with Professional Body 1. She was questioning and negative from the outset. Not all the blame for that rests with M. Having heard W in evidence, I can see why M asked questions and why M felt that W was interrupting. Having heard M in evidence, I accept that she was defensive with Professional Body 1 and took over sessions. They would have been going around in circles. The Guardian saw a shift in W when M said she did not want to engage further. Professional Body 1’s approach does seem to be all-in or not at all. I place little weight on Professional Body 1’s evidence, save their factual observations and helpful timeline.

The Guardian has applied the Cafcass tool for alienating behaviour. Her use of the tool was questioned by H during her evidence and by Mrs Thomas. On the front page of the tool is the explicit requirement to use it only in conjunction with the guidance. Mrs Thomas has attached two emails from H to her submissions. H asserts, as she did in oral evidence, that the Guardian was wrong to use the alienating behaviour tool. H correctly identifies the 3 requirements identified by the President. She then says

“By using these 3 documents, I found that the 3 A’s can explain XY’s resistance to spend time with F, which in turn discredits the Cafcass tool’s findings. The tool should not have been used”.

It is not for a witness to make findings. Whether or not there has been any of the component parts of alienating behaviour is for a court to find.

At page 2 of the tool, it states:

“Please note: this tool should not be used in cases where the child is resisting or refusing time with a parent as a justifiable rejection e.g. when there has been domestic abuse or other forms of harmful parenting. It is also not a relevant tool when any of the other reasons for the child’s resistance or refusal e.g. affinity, attachment or the child’s own independent preference are the primary factors”.

The guidance assists with some definitions:

Where there is any difference between the definitions, it is the FJC that must be applied. They have the endorsement of the President.

The Guardian’s though process is set out under ‘Professional Judgment’. She gives first-hand accounts of the behaviour that she has observed, noting reports from both Professional Body 1 and Professional Body 2. Her use of the tool is based upon her “reviewing my interviews with each family member and my discussion with professionals”. The Guardian then considers the parents’ respective behaviours and where they are found within the three categories found within the tool.

The totality of the Guardian’s evidence goes beyond using the tool. She does not believe that M has consistently wanted F to have a relationship with XY. She described M as using highly emotive language and expressive body language which would be unlikely to relieve XY’s discomfort and would make her aware of M’s emotional fragility. M accepted asking XY if she was okay 3 times. The Guardian said that repeatedly being asked if she is okay may give a subtle indication to XY that she is not safe. The Guardian took issue with M applying for an ISW to assess F’s parenting capacity given the state of the evidence. The Guardian was essentially describing M as being overprotective and unrealistic when she intervenes to protect XY “the second she is upset”.

Part of the implicit criticism is that the Guardian used the tool at a time when findings of fact have not been made. Neither the guidance nor the tool makes that requirement explicit (unlike the FJC guidelines and Re C, which do). In my judgment, the issue is not as clear cut as is submitted. Had the Guardian jumped straight to the alienating behaviour part of the tool and based her recommendations upon her ‘findings’, I would accept the submission made. She has not done so. Her use of the tool highlights behaviour which she gives factual evidence about and where such behaviour(s) would fit into the tool. I consider that I must apply a similar limit to weight that I can place upon the Cafcass tool as I do to Dr B’s report. It is for a court to consider findings of alienating behaviour. Should I not make findings, or make findings of a lesser degree, then the use of the tool could become invalid.

I agree with the Guardian and Professional Body 2 that M’s recent actions are positive and not suggestive of alienating behaviour. The words that accompany and surround those actions are as relevant as the actions themselves. Positive and encouraging actions are undermined, at least in part, by M’s recent ISW application, her tone to F and the tone and content of her oral evidence.

H told the court that from her work with M, there are issues with M feeling like she is protecting XY and that M wants the relationship (with F) to be safe and healthy. That must be considered in the context of whether M is justified in what she considers to be safe. H did not think that M was projecting her views on XY. In H’s view, this isn’t a “clear cut” case of alienating behaviour. She thinks that the difficulties that arisen within XY’s aligned and close relationship with M. H gave F’s friend turning up as an example of a justified refusal. Any issue XY had with F’s friend being present at one contact session did not materialise for some weeks. It then appeared to be significant. F did not hide the fact that his friend was present and mentioned it to Professional Body 2 before anyone else, including M or XY, mentioned it. XY mistakenly referred to F’s friend as “[incorrect name]”.

The case can be summarised in this way. The parties and professional witnesses describe a variety of behaviours by M, XY and to a lesser extent, F. H is of the view that behaviours amount to the 3 A’s and any rejection of F by XY is justified. The Guardian is of the view that many of the same behaviours are not explained by the 3 A’s and any rejection is not always justified.

XY does not refuse a relationship with F but she is frequently reluctant or resistant. Sometimes that resistance means she refuses to go to contact but she does attend on another occasions. Sometimes her reluctance is overcome for that day by the parents working together. alienating behaviour is not absolute and can be intermittent. Part of the question is whether the presence of the 3 R’s is consequent of anything F has done or not, such that XY’s refusal may be justified or whether or not XY’s views can be explained by the 3 A’s.

It is clear from the Guardian’s report and from all the professionals that XY is loyal to M and evidently aligned to her way of thinking. XY is wholly positive about M and much of her though process reverts to M, whether or not she is being discussed at that moment. Her view of M is almost a caveat or add-on to what she says about F. M and XY have a very strong bond and affinity.

XY has expressed some very strong views of F. M herself gave the strongest example to Professional Body 2 - “I hate him, he is stupid”. That is just one example. XY had a strong view when speaking to the Guardian. She would turn positives into negatives even when reminded of the fun she had with F. Professional Body 2 say that XY’s emotions and unusually strong dislike of F do not fully align and are inconsistent with observations of family time. XY is rude to F. Dr B was of the view that XY’s reasons to him were weak and nebulous. S also noted XY’s comments and her struggle to elaborate upon them. Professional Body 2 consider it likelythat XY has been exposed to adult conversations from M (or her network) which may have influenced her. The timing and impact of her C2 seeking an ISW is noted by Professional Body 2 in their work.

Some important aspects have changed since Dr B reported:

XY has referred to F as being stupid, in the same sentence as saying she hates him. M’s views of F’s slow processing are frequently mentioned in the reports and in her oral evidence. The Guardian described the way that M speaks to F is incredibly patronising, oppressive and at times abusive. She brings up F’s processing difficulties but cannot make any allowance for it, so much so that the Guardian found it uncomfortable. M saying that F was tired after contact was a further attempt to undermine his ability and confidence. It is notable that XY comments on her views of F’s intelligence or ability.

Whilst M’s shaking is understandable, it is still visible to XY. She does not know of M’s past (for good reason). What she will see is her mother shaking after XY has contact with F. She was asked if she was okay 3 times. That in itself is not an issue, but it becomes an issue in context of XY’s strong views and subtle messaging that suggests that XY is not safe with F. XY’s choice of words to Guardian, such as safe, tell me that XY does not see herself as safe. XY has been treated to days out by M if she happens to refuse contact on that day.

Professional Body 2 has clearly seen the need for direct work with M around body language and her approach to F. They have used the term ‘influence’ on several occasions and struggle to see why XY presents as she does. Where they differ from the Guardian is that they see XY’s behaviour as being within the 3 A’s, the Guardian does not.

F has undoubtedly struggled to impose boundaries and with XY’s emotional needs. Adopting a “connection before correction” approach may have contributed to XY’s views about her wishing to make the rules. I do not find F’s behaviour towards M, S or XY to be appropriate. His reference to it being the ‘’[surname] Way’ is out of date, out of touch and is likely to have heightened sensitivities and emotions in an already tense atmosphere. F has been inappropriate in other ways. His emails and involving his wider network have not been helpful. He has formed a fixed view of M going back to the first scan.

However, like the experts and professionals, I struggle to see how F’s behaviour could justify the strength of feeling XY has or her rejection of him. As the Guardian said in evidence, XY’s reasons for disliking F do not make sense. XY puts a negative spin on positive memories when reminded of them and appears to use trivial matters from years prior to justify not wanting to see F. XY is still only 8. The Guardian described those reasons as “trivial, false, weak and irrational”.

Following the case law and guidance, it is not open to the court to conclude that because there is no other credible explanation, alienating behaviour must be the cause. In essence, the consideration is holistic rather than linear. I can only find alienating behaviour if F establishes on a balance of probabilities that the test set out in Re C and the Guidelines is met.

It is the strengthof XY’s views that lead me to the conclusion that the 3 R’s are not justified by the 3 A’s. Some of XY’s behaviour can be explained by the 3 A’s but not all of it. XY’s responses to F go over and above the 3 A’s. I do not consider that all XY’s behaviour can be explained by AJR. F’s behaviour is inappropriate at times (and questionable at others), but it is unlikely to have influenced XY to reach the repeatedly strong views that she has. Therefore, I am satisfied that on a balance of probabilities that M has alienated XY from F. alienating behaviour are undoubtedly emotionally harmful. The court only has to consider XY’s reactions to F to see the impact of that upon her.

M has not complied with the 2021 order and the use of “Daddy [Name]”. That is likely to have impacted upon XY, at a time when she identified with M’s former partner being her father. Beyond that, I do not find that M has a history of disguised compliance. The Guardian backed away from that view in her oral evidence. M has been open about the various professionals she has worked with. Where she has decided not to work with a professional for whatever reason, she is clear about it.

I find that M was not open and honest about her relationship with her former partner ending. I agree with the Guardian that is significant when looking at things from XY’s perspective. M’s former partner was in her life from a very young age, and she saw him as her father. Their relationship is likely to be a factor in why XY and F’s relationship has had its difficulties. M referred to F’s position as daddy not resonating with XY and M’s former partner being “another daddy”.When XY spoke to the Guardian, it was clear that XY did not know that the relationship has finished. M was not open. She should have been.

XY is 8 years of age. She is intelligent and mature beyond her years. She has unfortunately been allowed to exercise a significant element of control over her arrangements. That is clear from all the professional evidence and XY’s letter to me in the Cafcass report [1013]. She has negative views of F despite the good times she has enjoyed with him. Given my findings, I cannot be satisfied that XY’s expressed views represent her true wishes and feelings. F accepted that XY has not asked for more time or overnight contact. There is no doubt that XY wants to remain living with M.

M meets all XY’s physical and educational needs. Save XY’s emotional need for a relationship with F, M meets her emotional needs.

All parties and professionals agree that contact needs to progress at XY’s pace. They have differing views about to what extent contact should allow that. Thus far, XY has been allowed to be in charge. That has to stop. With Professional Body 2 continuing their involvement, the impact of any change on XY is likely to be manageable and mitigated. alienating behaviour is emotionally harmful. There is a risk of emotional harm to XY if arrangements are rushed or she becomes even more reluctant.

M has to the capacity to support contact and give XY emotional permission to build a relationship if she can accept that F’s cognitive issues, such as they are, are not a safeguarding issue or a reason for contact not to progress. Dr B and the Guardian are clear. F is able to prioritise his relationship with XY. Despite my findings, he needs to be more trusting of M and less reliant upon his supporters. The ‘[Name] Way’ of behaving is inappropriate.

Paragraph 25 of PD12J applies to interim arrangements where the criteria in Para 2A.1 are met. They are not in in this case. The court can, however, apply the principle that no order for contact should expose the child or parent with care to an unmanageable risk of harm within the welfare checklist.

F does not pursue an immediate change of residence. XY will remain living with M. I am satisfied that is in her best interests for there to be a “lives with” order in M’s favour.

F seeks a suspended change of residence. XY has always lived with M. Her care has been good in all ways save as I have found about XY’s relationship with F. F is still at the stage of daytime contact with Professional Body 2 involved. He is not in a position to care for XY, now or anytime soon. To hang the threat of a change of residence over M, and indeed XY, is unrealistic and the application is ill-founded. It would create a pressure on the parties where the ‘nuclear option’ is simply not in XY’s best interests. I accept that F’s functioning does not prevent him being able to care for XY but there is a considerable difference between that and having full-time care of a child who will have been removed very much against her will from her primary carer. F saw that in his oral evidence but not when he cross-examined the Guardian the following day. Even with my findings in mind, I do not consider that a suspended change of residence is in XY’s best interests. The application is refused.

XY very much has the need for her relationship with F to develop, and to do so without influence and with emotional permission. Dr B set out almost 2 years ago the importance of doing so. That remains the case now. Prior to that, the parties reached a consent order with significant amounts of contact. XY has been caught between the parties for at least 2 years longer than she should have been.

I do not consider that M has raised justifiable reasons for contact to not develop. F said that M would tell him when XY wants overnight contact. She may well do, but this case is simply not going to develop without the outline structure of a court order. The Guardian confirmed in evidence that Saturdays and Sundays need to happen now. I agree. XY has already shown that a 7-hour contact can work. Adding another one the following day is quite a change for XY but one that she is likely to adapt to with input from Professional Body 2. Contact has moved on since Dr B reported.

Broadly speaking, I am satisfied that the Guardian’s proposal is in XY’s best interests. Like her, I have difficulty in putting a timeframe on it. In any event, the recommendations need to be updated from March 2025 when they were written.

Where I reach a conclusion different to that of the Guardian is when the various forms of contact should begin. I agree that contact on alternate Saturdays and Sundays should begin as stated. The existing intervening contact currently takes place on Fridays. I consider that M should have a complete weekend. There should be focus on making the long weekend successful before then reinstating the intervening contact on a Wednesday. That does mean removing the Friday in the very short-term. Moving rather than removing it now would mean evening contact on a school day. I would expect overnight contact to begin within a reasonable time of weekend daytime contact being successful and then an intervening Wednesday following promptly thereafter.

I do not consider that 2 weeks of summer contact should happen as soon as this summer. Time is needed to build up to it and contact should not be rushed. Early attempts at overnight contact were not successful. There should be extended periods of time, with days added to the weekends after a period of successful overnight contact.

With all contact, it will need full and proper engagement with Professional Body 2, a careful parenting plan and consideration of XY’s views rather than it being decided by her. She should not have the burden of decision making. The detailed plan I have is almost unusable given the number of colour coded comments and objections.

If for any reason, XY refuses to go when contact reaches the overnight stage, she shall still go for the daytime contact. The parents will need to reach an agreement as to how that will work. If XY refuses any contact, she is not to be given a treat or outing.

I am satisfied that an order is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.

All parties agree that an s91(14) is in XY’s best interests. I agree. The question is what duration is proportionate. I disagree with the parties and the Guardian. I do not consider that 12 months is sufficient and consider 3 years to be disproportionate. Given where this case has got to and its lengthy history of litigation, I consider that 2 years is the proportionate duration. Any application for leave must be accompanied by details from Professional Body 2 about the efforts made to resolve any problems with contact.

I agree that a parenting app is required. I do not consider that F’s approach of involving several people in his communications to be helpful. There is no difficulty with his discussing things with his sister, but he must take the lead and use the app. There are real issues with communication in this case. Multiple ‘copied in’ emails are perhaps the source of that and need to stop.

F needs to understand that although I have made findings of alienating behaviour, they should not be seen as a continual point of reference going forward. The purpose of findings is to make sense of XY’s lived experiences.

I will invite the parties to agree to not speak of the other in negative or derisory terms in the presence or hearing of XY. I have expressed that an undertaking would be preferable, but I cannot compel one to be given.

That is my judgment.