By Natalie Page

Socials: Twitter Facebook Instagram

When Lara[1] left her violent husband, she was unprepared. Propelled swiftly into the court room, she was on the back-foot and unaware of what she was up against. A few months later, she received a bogus diagnosis from a court appointed ‘expert’ who she later discovered wasn’t even qualified to give one. Her children were taken using force as a result of this diagnosis. Four police officers prised their perfect little fingers from their mother as they dragged the children away amid their bloodcurdling screams. They were delivered by the police to live with their abusive father on the orders of the Family Court. Authorities went to these lengths because Lara had been diagnosed an ‘alienator’. She never saw her children again.

Lara had committed no crimes. She had no bad record with social services. Like thousands of others subjected to this scandal, she had reported crimes committed against her. Women are told they are crazy or dishonest when they allege abuse. A perpetrator gets to drastically reduce the chances of courtroom accountability by saying she’s mad or bad. Now he can say she’s an ‘alienator’ with devastating effect.

So-called ‘parental alienation theory’ is the ultimate courtroom weapon because it frames allegations of domestic abuse as symptoms of a disorder. Simply swerving accountability is not enough for a domestic abuse perpetrator. They use systems until they can make good on their most frequently levelled threat: ‘If you leave, I will take the kids off you in court.’ A ring of ‘parental alienation’ experts circling the justice system willingly assist, in return for large fees.  ‘Parental alienation’ experts darkly twist children’s abuse disclosures: Your mum put you up to saying that. They will send kids to live with the person they are reporting to ‘cure’ them of such wrong-think. If the children resist, they can respond with force.

Women’s reports of abuse are rebutted almost instantly because what underpins ‘parental alienation’ theory is the idea: she’s just a manipulative bitch who wants to keep the children away from the father. It’s a misogynistic trope that the family justice system readily accepted. In doing so they changed the face of safeguarding.

The UN report, by Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, confirmed how states sanctioning such dangerous theories in family courtrooms are violating the governing standard of the best interest of the child and human rights. The report urged states to legislate to ban the use of ‘parental alienation’ theory in all its guises, because it goes by many names. The UN wants them all prohibited.

The original, ‘parental alienation syndrome’ originated from American doctor[2] and paedophile sympathiser, Richard Gardner. He had a lucrative line of work in the 1980’s assessing violent offenders, abusers, paedophiles, and rapists for the court. His work centred on critiquing the victims of the crimes – not the offender, of course – the offender was most likely the paying client. He lamented society’s punitive approach to child abuse. His modern-day disciples grasped the baton after his death, ardently promoting the stickiest, most insidious disinformation that punishes victims today. The ubiquitous concept inexplicably stuck – despite repeated, wholesale rejection by the scientific community. Nowadays, there is a shadow industry surrounding family courts around the world who wield incredible influence over outcomes for families.

Bizarrely, government-funded agency CAFCASS (who are tasked with the welfare of children in Family Court in England and Wales), hasn’t seen the writing on the wall. They resisted dropping the problematic concept in the face of growing concerns and controversy. Instead, they ditched the term ‘parental alienation’, replacing it with the poorly defined and eerily similar ‘alienating behaviours’. Literally anything can be positioned as ‘alienating behaviour’. A micro facial expression. A commitment to safeguarding your kids. Reporting abuse. Your children not wanting to see someone who harmed you, or them, or both.

It is time to acknowledge that these agencies are not fit for purpose. Ultimately, a distinct lack of governance caused systems to end up here. Recent organisational policy from CAFCASS demonstrated they are increasingly against regulation, preferring a culture of trust and discretion instead. Families can’t just blindly trust that agencies will reform. Similarly, funding governments can’t just blindly trust agencies who are racking up a potential future bill of millions of pounds in human rights claims. Resistance to acting on the UN report will be vocal, as many people pinned profitable careers on the discredited concept and perpetrators rely on the narrative as an essential tool to punish victims.

One unregulated ‘parental alienation’ expert proudly proclaimed in a (since deleted) blog post that in order to continue her work, she must encourage the court experts and practitioners she trains and supervises to ‘act in ways that fall far short of international standards’ , as though this was a good thing. When families are assessed by experts who can’t adhere to professional standards, lives can be ruined. Experts hoodwink the court and clients by promoting a ‘disorder’ that can only be cured by their own hugely expensive ‘reunification’ therapy, presenting an obvious conflict of interest that shouldn’t be accepted anywhere, let alone in our law courts – especially at the expense of unwitting families. Regulation, and an enforceable code of practice, is a crucial, sorely needed step.

The United Nations couldn’t have been clearer. Judges need training on the use of junk science like ‘parental alienation’, and how it’s used as the metaphorical gun pointed at a victim’s head. Court experts should be publicly funded, regulated, rigorously trained, with formal complaints mechanisms. Right now, if an unregulated expert takes your child from you off the back of a bunkum diagnosis, there is no credible route to recourse. States need to vet and maintain a list of approved experts who act within accepted clinical guidelines.

The UN report makes plain that states must prohibit the use of ‘parental alienation’ theory and its derivatives in the children’s cases. Prior to the UN report’s publication, Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division said that Parliament needs to legislate the use of ‘parental alienation’ theory. The disgraced former Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said in response that the Family Court needs to do it. They each pointed the finger at the other. While everyone dithers and says this isn’t their job, mothers and children continue to suffer preventable, unimaginable harm.

[1] Names changed.

[2] His credentials were never independently verified.