The High Court’s decision signals that where parental alienation is acute, and the protective safety net of the Local Authority (LA) is withdrawn or deemed inadequate, the Family Court will not hesitate to use its public law powers to wrest control of the welfare plan.
Facts:
This case involves long-running private law proceedings concerning four children: A, aged 12; B, aged 10; C, aged 8; and D, aged 4, following the separation and divorce of their parents (the biological mother and the father) in 2021. The father had previously issued an application for a child arrangements order (CRO) in May 2022.
In July 2024, following a six-day fact-finding hearing, the Court concluded that the father had been aggressive and threatening towards the mother, pressured her for sex, and had once angrily kicked B. However, the Court did not find that the mother's very serious allegations of rape against her or physical and sexual abuse of the children by the father (or other men) were proven. The Judge specifically noted that the children's accounts of abuse were unconvincing and lacked detail, and found that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour by expressing a continuous pattern of negative communications about the father, having convinced herself that the central abuse allegations were true and that the father posed an ongoing danger.
Following the fact-finding assessment, Dr. Gomes recommended a systemic therapeutic intervention to address the family relationships and the children's "dissonance" regarding the father. In October 2024, the LA initially agreed to lead on this intervention, acknowledging the risk of the mother's "disguised compliance" and parental alienation. Progress was achieved only with the youngest child, D, whose contact with the father had successfully progressed to unsupervised time, supported initially by the social worker (SW1). However, the three older children (A, B, and C) remained highly resistant to contact.
By July 2025, the therapist ('Z') reported that the plan to reintegrate the father was "not working," identifying factors such as the children being exposed to inappropriate information and a lack of boundaries at the mother's home, leading to enmeshment and adverse mental health effects. The new social worker (SW2) corroborated these concerns, noting that the mother's verbal commitment to contact was "superficial" and that B displayed themes of control, manipulation, and co-dependency with the mother.
Critically, A and B were exhibiting severe emotional distress, including suicidal thoughts. Despite the escalating concerns and the Guardian's call for public law orders, the Judge agreed with the LA in July 2025 to allow the therapeutic work to conclude. However, the plan collapsed and the LA unilaterally, and without consultation, cancelled the therapy and a meeting of professionals, filing a statement only one day before the September 2025 hearing.
Decision:
The High Court imposed public law orders to protect the children's welfare, overriding the wishes of both the LA and the mother. The Judge made Interim Care Orders (ICOs) under Section 38 of the Children Act 1989 for all four children due to the mother's parental alienation having caused significant, ongoing emotional harm, with the LA having failed to take the necessary protective action.
The Court found the interim threshold criteria under Section 38(2) of the Children Act 1989 were amply satisfied. The Court noted that the private law proceedings had run for nearly four years without achieving a meaningful relationship between the older children and their father. The Court determined that any further delay would only instil greater problems for the children as they grew older.
The Judge explicitly rejected the LA's late decision to "step down" its involvement and close the case, citing the principle from Re K (Children) that the Court can renew a S.37 direction if a previous investigation was unsatisfactory.
Implications:
This case highlights the limits of private law proceedings and the judicial response to intractable parental alienation. The case underscores the Court's willingness to move severe, intractable parental alienation disputes from the private law arena (i.e., disputes between parents) into the public law arena (involving the LA and state intervention) as and when the private process fails. The ruling confirms that parental alienation, when persistent and severe, meets the threshold of "significant harm" necessary for public law intervention.
The judgement strongly affirms the Court's power to scrutinise and overrule a LA decision-making process, especially when that process is flawed and risks leaving vulnerable children unprotected.
The case provides a modern example of how the Court balances the principle of adopting the least interventionist course, while respecting the family's Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights, with the paramountcy principle of the child's welfare.
