PETER DAVIES, from NAAP and D.A.D.s, writes … beware of tricksters, blustering obfuscation and egos like bloated cadavers…

Recently, it has been necessary to take time out from swimming in the noxious cesspool of the ‘UK PA’ world.

I made the decision for me to focus on things close to home and prioritise them over and above my activities helping the real victims of alienation.

Time away from the ‘UK PA’ coal face has been no bad thing.

A good thing about Covid-induced isolation is that it has given many of us the first opportunity in a while to step back, take stock and reconsider our view of the landscape we live in. 

After being shamelessly hijacked and mischaracterised, the terms ‘parental alienation’ or PA have become toxic and unnecessary brands which have been creatively adapted by too many spivs, abusers and tricksters.

The fact is that most INDIVIDUAL alienating behaviours have been found to be abusive by the courts.

What is the point of bunching several of these behaviours together: in a way that no two people can agree upon, giving a disputed list of abusive behaviours, a controversial label and campaigning for that label — which does not accurately describe the problem anyway — to be accepted by all three branches of government?

Meanwhile, the courts have already found that each of the most common alienating behaviours are abusive in their own right! Why obsess about proving a list of behaviours when just one will do? The case Re: L (A child) EWHC 867 (Fam) needs to be read and understood by all alienated parents because it is a fine example to illustrate my point. In this case, judged by Sir Andrew MacFarlane sitting in the High Court of the family division, the residence of a 9 year old boy was changed from the Midlands to Northern Ireland. 

The principal justification for the change of residence in Re L was the emotional harm caused by just one alienating behaviour — a campaign of denigration — which was perpetrated mainly by the maternal grandmother. It did not need proof of PA, implacable hostility, any other list of behaviours or any other collective term. Parents do not need to prove these psychological constructs either. In its first paragraph the judgment remarked:

‘The appeal concerns the approach to be taken in a case which, on the judge’s finding, falls short of attracting the labels “intractable hostility” or “parental alienation”.’ 

In other words a change of residence was triggered at a much lower level than a finding of PA. The child was still able to enjoy time with his father at this time. At para 33 the judgment states: 

‘…I have already summarised the Guardian’s observation as to L’s stated response about his father, which is wholly negative when with his mother, and, in contrast, his behaviour, which was entirely positive when father and son were seen together.’

In other words the court did not wait for PA to become established to the extent that the child was also negative about the targeted parent during contact with them. To do so would clearly be subjecting children to an avoidable and elevated risk of harm. The court acted relatively swiftly and decisively. In cases where there are alienating behaviours, early and positive court interventions are essential. Another point worth stressing is that the guardian deliberately avoided seeking the child’s, obviously conflicted and troubled, wishes and feelings. The judge reported. Also at para 33:

The Guardian did not directly ask L about the proposal that he should move to live with his father in Northern Ireland. In oral evidence, in response to a question from the judge, the Guardian explained that, although she had begun to investigate wishes and feelings using worksheets with L, she had not directly asked him about a move to Northern Ireland because she considered that it would be harmful to do so. 

It is relatively common for courts and Cafcass to regard the views of deeply conflicted children as determinative. It is also common for courts to use the expressed wishes and feelings of troubled children as a human shield and an excuse for doing nothing. But, in Re L, we now have a clear view from an enlightened guardian telling us clearly that probing the voice of a child at such an emotionally fraught time for them is obviously harmful. Obtaining children’s views at such times is also utterly pointless because they are indistinguishable from the views of the alienating parent.

The courts have put this guidance on a plate for the benefit of all of us. We ignore such strong guidance at our peril. Clearly, no alienated parent in possession of their critical faculties, would ignore this advice either for the benefit of themselves or their children. Importantly, the judgment has since been cited by the Court of Appeal in Re S and the principle that a change of residence is NOT a measure of last resort was also firmly supported by the court of appeal.

These are all issues which we will be exploring shortly. The senior judiciary have given some very clear hints and guidance upon how to approach cases involving alienating behaviours. Only the hardest of thinking would ignore such advise and obsess about a pet idea instead. However, that is precisely what some are doing. By any standards it is absolutely bonkers and of no use whatsoever to genuinely alienated parents.

Therefore, those obsessing about a now toxic brand do so for a number of reasons and helping parents is most definitely NOT one of them.

For anyone that thinks of my impression of the ‘UK PA’ world as an exaggeration, jaded, or, that all people who claim to be alienated parents are actually being truthful, I would encourage them to take a look at the various pages of social media and twitter in particular. Before doing this I must warn readers that you will need a strong stomach because there are plenty of examples of behaviour which is truly sickening. 

Whilst those who know me will attest to the fact that I am no fan of militant feminism or any other militant ‘-ism’ for that matter, it is a fact that some of these female campaigners against domestic abuse, have endured some dreadful examples of subjugation, coercion, bullying and unimaginable depths of human behaviour. Similarly, as a reward for simply being born on the wrong side of the tracks, we will all know of others who have also endured some of the worst abuse imaginable. 

Having worked in the mental health system and seen the horrific consequences of childhood trauma, at first hand, I can appreciate how profoundly abuse affects the lives of its many victims. Thankfully, my own childhood was idyllic by comparison with what I have seen and heard of since. However, as a child, I was not very old before I had my first insight into the horrendous circumstances which others endured as children. I quickly realised how fortunate I was. Like most people, I know this teaches us something about understanding and appreciating the feelings of others. Also, like most others, it taught me that — no matter how sorry I felt about what others had endured — there were limits to my empathy because what had happened to others lay outside my own frame of reference. I could only imagine how it felt for them. Likewise, unless you are a truly alienated you cannot fully empathise with what it feels like to be alienated. First hand experience is invaluable: without it, we can ony guess.

Nonetheless, it does not take much emotional intelligence or empathetic ability to understand how abusive behaviour online could easily mirror and remind victims of the past abuse and trauma they experienced. Abusive behaviour also has the capacity to trigger painful reactions in these victims. Most of us understand and appreciate how  horrid this could be because it triggers our core instincts. Without a frame of reference it is bad enough. Within a frame of reference it must be unimaginably awful: like a worst nightmare.

However, when we see the same parent ‘victims’ repeatedly and abusively hounding, hectoring and haranguing clearly damaged and recovering victims of domestic abuse it is truly stomach churning because we also realise that when people habitually go out of their way to do something it is usually because it does something for them, they obtain perverse gratification from it and they enjoy it. We realise that some sick minds actually get thrills, pleasure, kicks and even the occasional frisson of excitement from relentlessly goading and baiting victims of abuse. They may even derive some sort of reassurance or a superior feeling from it but, to most of us, such behaviour is as repugnant and abhorrent as outlawed ‘sports’ such as pig sticking, bearbaiting and dog fighting. How utterly worthless and inadequate must a person be to sink to targeting fellow human beings that have suffered awful abuse and have been horribly and permanently wounded? Frankly, how could such cruel and blood-lusting animals be even remotely capable of being even a good-enough parent? There are indeed instances where the court makes the right decision by limiting contact with unfit parents. The courts do not always get it wrong. They sometimes get it 100% correct. 

In some further articles, which will soon follow, we will be explaining what being a truly alienated parent feels like besides explaining exactly why some of the popular campaigns regarding ‘UK PA’ are actually damaging to alienated children and parents. We urge you to read this information carefully, use your brains and refuse to behave like sheep or like magpies attracted to shiny objects. 

Make up your own minds, and vote with your feet.

P.S  We were relieved to hear that the house of Lords declined to support Baroness Meyer’s amendment to the domestic abuse bill which referred to ‘parental alienation’ as,

’… a parent’s behaviour deliberately designed to damage the relationship between a child of the parent and the other parent.’ 

The statutory guidance already refers to a list of individual and SPECIFIC alienating behaviours whilst avoiding bunching them together under an umbrella label. The amendment, if adopted would therefore have been a retrograde step. In addition the word ‘deliberately’ means that it would have become necessary to prove intent whereas the most recent case of Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] Ewca Civ 568, at para 8 clearly states: 

‘…the manipulation of the child by the other parent need not be malicious or even deliberate. It is the process that matters, not the motive. ‘ 

Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult)

Besides undermining what had already been achieved by Philip Davies MP, the amendment would have made life far more difficult, for already struggling alienated parents, than the position already established in caselaw. On 24^th March 2021 the bill had its 3^rd reading in the House of Lords and only one amendment — to correct a drafting error – was made. We can therefore breath a sigh of relief that common sense and reason has prevailed over an obsession with PA and pet ideas.