In December 2024, the Family Justice Council (FJC) published long-awaited guidance on how the courts should respond to a child's unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent, and allegations of alienating behaviour—a topic that has, for too long, divided professionals and stirred considerable public controversy.
Mahpara Qadri explains how the guidance brings much-needed clarity to this fraught area of family law, placing child welfare at the heart of judicial decision-making and challenging the misuse of the concept of "parental alienation" in litigation.
Alienating Behaviour terminology based on clinical evidence
The guidance addresses valid concerns around the terminology frequently being misused in such proceedings. It highlights the considerable tension between concepts such as 'parental alienation' and the associated term 'alienating behaviours' . It firmly rejects "parental alienation syndrome" as a made-up theory without any real scientific proof. The guidance states that the use of such language can be counterproductive to the interests of the child. Instead, the FJC presents a more practical and responsible approach, using terms that are based on solid clinical evidence:
Reluctance, Resistance or Refusal (RRR): A child's behaviour in avoiding contact with a parent.
Appropriate Justified Rejection (AJR): When a child refuses contact due to legitimate experiences of harm or poor parenting.
Alienating Behaviours (AB): Psychologically manipulative behaviours (whether intentional or not) by one parent that result in a child's unjustified rejection of the other.
To establish a finding of Alienating Behaviour, the court must be satisfied of three elements
- The child shows RRR towards one parent.
- The RRR cannot be explained by that parent's behaviour (i.e. it is not AJR or the result of alignment/attachment).
- The other parent has engaged in behaviours that directly or indirectly led to the child's rejection.
This triad ensures that allegations of Alienating Behaviour are not accepted at face value and that the court resists making findings in the absence of clear, proportionate, and evidenced claims.
Distinguishing Alienating Behaviour from domestic abuse
Crucially, the guidance acknowledges that allegations of alienating behaviour are often raised in response to domestic abuse claims. It warns that such counter-allegations can be weaponised to silence victims and discredit protective parents. As such, domestic abuse is not to be treated as equivalent to alienation: abuse is a crime; alienation is not. If a child's rejection is due to exposure to abuse, then it is likely to be an AJR—not evidence of alienation.
This principled stance marks a significant shift toward prioritising child safety and preventing what the guidance terms "litigation abuse."
Expert evidence in Alienating Behaviour cases
The guidance also tightens standards around the use of expert evidence. Psychologist experts must be properly qualified, HCPC-registered, and independent. The court is cautioned against relying on those with financial or ideological interests in "alienation interventions," and is advised to avoid experts who seek to "diagnose" parental alienation—a term which, by legal standards, remains unrecognised.
The voice of the child in Alienating Behaviour cases
Perhaps most importantly, the guidance reaffirms the importance of hearing the child. It warns against undermining children's expressed wishes by presuming coaching or manipulation. Their voices must be taken seriously, even when difficult, and considered within a broad understanding of developmental, emotional, and cultural factors.
A Turning Point for Practice
This new guidance represents a turning point. It helps courts differentiate between protective parenting and manipulative behaviours; it curbs misuse of alienation claims; and it reasserts the court's role in robustly managing and scrutinising evidence. For practitioners, it serves as a much-needed compass in cases where parental conflict blurs the lines between safeguarding and coercion.
At its core, the FJC's guidance reclaims the focus of private children law: not on parental rights or blame—but on the child's welfare, safety, and voice.
For family lawyers navigating these complex cases, this guidance is not just helpful—it is essential.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
