We attach evidence from Women Against Rape & SNS to the Family Justice Council in response to their draft Guidance on Responding to Allegations of alientating behaviour. Submitted 16 October 2023.

Our introduction says: Context for Guidance on “alienating behaviours”

Flying in the face of substantial official international recognition of the illegitimacy of “parental alienation”, it is shocking that the FJC now wants to formalise and legitimise “alienating behaviours” by producing this Guidance. We completely reject this Guidance and urge the FJC to look again at the evidence against “parental alienation” taking into account the body of official evidence and the points made below.

“Parental alienation” (referred to from now on as PA) was invented by a discredited US psychiatrist who promoted paedophilia – a fact which seems to be constantly ignored.  The term “alienating behaviours” (referred to from now on as AB) is simply “parental alienation” by another name at a time when PA has been rejected by a number of countries, including Scotland, Spain and Italy and by the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. (see below) 

The Introduction to the Guidance states that “it does not aim to explore the research literature into the concept of “parental alienation”, the socio-political context in which such allegations arise or to give an historical account”. So this Guidance has NO context and NO evidence base. It is therefore an attempt to repackage a dangerous and harmful misogynistic practice invented and promoted by domestic violence deniers to divert attention from their crimes and prevent women and children from getting the protection they are entitled to from the courts.

The Introduction further states that “’Parental Alienation’ has for some time been a vexed and highly emotive concept with polarized opinion in the research literature, and one which has gained significant publicity and political attention internationally.” There is broad international agreement that abusive and violent behaviour against women and children in the home by men is rife, and it is a scandal that family courts continue to invoke PA or AB to reassert men’s control over women and children who try to escape.

PA has no basis in science and there is no agreed definition of PA. It is the product of a growing industry borne of misogyny in family courts that seeks to reinstate any father, even those with a history of violence, as head of household.

There can be no “good practice” using PA/AB. Family courts have until recently evaded public scrutiny because of the rules on secrecy, and this has allowed PA claims by abusive fathers to multiply. Together with other women’s organisations and individuals, we successfully fought against the inclusion of PA as a form of domestic abuse during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act and against its inclusion in the Act’s Statutory Guidance. It was a blatant attempt to take over legislation designed to protect victims of domestic abuse which is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women and children, so that it would protect the perpetrator rather than the victim. This was defeated and we will continue to fight against any new attempt, including by the Family Justice Council, to use PA/AB to reinstate men’s power over women and children.

See attached for our detailed objections under the headings:

Domestic Violence —Presumption of contact and PA The fathers’ lobby and the professionals who benefit financially from PA are embedded in family courts Recommendations Official rejection of “parental alienation/alienating behaviours”