A And B (Children: 'parental Alienation') (No. 5)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns two young people, Child A (17 years old) and Child B (14 years old). The Applicant is their father, and the Respondent is their mother. The father's wife, Ms A, shares parental responsibility for the children by court order. The proceedings have spanned over four years and involve complex allegations of parental alienation and abuse.

Expert child psychiatrists and therapists were instructed to work with the family, but ultimately concluded that the mother had not changed her behaviour and had turned the children against the father. The court ordered a transfer of residence of the children from the mother to the father, which the mother unsuccessfully appealed.

Following the transfer in November 2020, the children initially ran away twice, involving police intervention, but later settled with the father. The mother made multiple applications for the children to be joined as parties in the proceedings, all of which were refused by the court and upheld on appeal.

In summer 2021, during a family trip to the United States, Child B ran away and made allegations against the father to the American police; Child A later went missing and purchased a mobile phone. Subsequent allegations by the children against the father mirrored earlier allegations found to be untrue by the court.

The court made orders preventing local authorities and the police from interviewing the children, which were later varied following challenges. The police investigation concluded with no further action.

Throughout the proceedings, the mother was found to have engaged in a sustained campaign to alienate the children from the father, including covert contact, use of third parties, and encouraging false allegations. The court made numerous procedural orders, including freezing specified assets of the mother and requiring her attendance at hearings, which she frequently breached or failed to comply with.

The children have shown significant improvement in their wellbeing and expressed contentment living with their father and stepmother. The court received expert evidence from Ms Woodall, a forensic expert, who supported findings of continued risk from the mother and recommended prohibiting contact between the mother and the children until they reach adulthood.

The father and his wife gave evidence confirming the events and the children's improved state. The court found the children credible and their accounts consistent with the evidence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the mother engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour amounting to parental alienation and emotional harm to the children.
2. Whether the findings of fact sought by the father against the mother could be established on the balance of probabilities.
3. The appropriateness of prohibiting contact between the mother and the children in their best interests.
4. The issue of costs and whether the mother’s conduct justified a costs order against her.
5. The extent to which the court should consider the credibility, demeanour, and reliability of witnesses, including the children, in the fact-finding process.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11	Standard of proof in fact-finding hearings is the balance of probabilities regardless of seriousness of allegations.	The court applied this standard to assess the allegations made in the case.
Re JK (A Child)(Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2021] EWHC 1367 (Fam)	Principles governing burden and standard of proof, necessity of basing findings on evidence not speculation.	Guided the court’s approach to fact-finding and evidential assessment.
Gloucestershire CC v RH and others [2012] EWHC 1370 (Fam)	Importance of assessing credibility and reliability of parents and carers in family proceedings.	Supported the court’s focus on credibility and reliability of the mother, father, and expert witnesses.
Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd and Another [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)	Judicial caution regarding reliance on witness recollection; preference for documentary evidence.	Informed the court’s balanced approach to oral evidence and memory fallibility.
Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)	Further guidance on assessing evidence based on recollection and the weaknesses thereof.	Reinforced the need for balanced evaluation of oral testimony.
Kogan v Martin and Others [2019] EWCA Civ 1645	Balanced approach to oral evidence, emphasizing assessment of all evidence rather than discrediting recollections wholesale.	Adopted by the court to ensure fair evaluation of witness evidence.
Re B-M [2021] EWCA Civ 1371	Significance of demeanour in assessing witness evidence, especially in family cases and children's testimony.	The court considered demeanour important in assessing the children’s evidence and credibility.
Re H-C [2016] EWCA Civ 136	Guidance on treatment of lies in family proceedings; lies do not equate to proof of guilt but may corroborate other evidence.	The court cautioned against relying solely on lies as proof of guilt in assessing evidence.
Re A (A Child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] 1 FLR 1817	Findings of fact must be based on evidence and proper inferences, not speculation or assertion.	Reinforced the court’s evidential threshold in making findings against the mother.
Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child's Evidence) [2006] 2 FLR 1071	Need for care in evaluating child evidence due to suggestibility and reliability concerns.	Guided the court’s careful analysis of the children’s statements and interviews.
R v B County Council ex parte P [1991] 1 FLR 470	Consideration of hearsay evidence of a child, including circumstances of statement and alleged abuse.	Applied in assessing the children’s hearsay evidence.
Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448	Definition of domestic abuse including coercive and controlling behaviour and its impact on children.	Supported findings that the mother’s behaviour constituted coercive and controlling conduct harming the children.
Re T (Children)	Costs orders in children proceedings are exceptional and generally not made absent reprehensible behaviour.	Informed the court’s decision to order costs against the mother due to her conduct.
Re C ('Parental Alienation': Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam)	Focus on behaviours rather than labels in parental alienation cases.	The court adopted this approach in considering expert evidence concerning the mother’s conduct.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court undertook a thorough review of the extensive evidence, including expert reports, witness statements, oral evidence, and the recorded Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interviews of the children. The court gave significant weight to the expert evidence of Ms Woodall, who had worked with the family for several years and provided detailed observations on the mother’s behaviour and its impact on the children.

The court found the children to be credible and compelling historians in their ABE interviews, noting their consistent and detailed accounts of the mother’s coercive and controlling behaviour, including the use of an unknown male to facilitate covert contact and manipulation. The court rejected the mother’s denials as inconsistent with the evidence, including specific incidents such as the use of tracking devices.

The court applied established legal principles concerning the burden and standard of proof in fact-finding hearings, emphasizing that findings must be based on evidence and proper inferences rather than speculation. It also considered the fallibility of memory and the importance of demeanour in assessing witness credibility, particularly in family cases involving children.

The court concluded that the mother had engaged in a deliberate and sustained campaign to alienate the children from the father, causing them significant emotional and psychological harm. The mother’s conduct was found to be coercive and controlling, and the court found no prospect of change or improvement in her behaviour.

Accordingly, the court determined that prohibiting any contact between the mother and the children until they reach adulthood was necessary to protect their welfare and best interests. The court also addressed the issue of costs, finding the mother’s conduct reprehensible and justifying a costs order against her.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following key rulings:

• All findings of fact sought by the father against the mother were proved on the balance of probabilities, including that the mother engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour amounting to parental alienation and emotional harm to the children.
• The mother is prohibited from having any contact with the children, directly or indirectly, until they reach the age of 18, except for limited monitored letterbox contact as may be appropriate in the future.
• The mother’s conduct during the proceedings was found to be reprehensible and unreasonable, justifying an order for costs against her in the sum of £240,954.
• Directions were made for the liquidation of the mother’s frozen assets to satisfy the costs orders.

The direct effect of this decision is to protect the children from further harm by the mother and to uphold the court’s previous orders regarding residence and parental responsibility. The ruling does not establish new legal precedent but applies and reinforces established principles relating to parental alienation, fact-finding standards, and costs in family proceedings.