Parental alienation is being misused in family courts so much that victims of it are afraid for the future of their children … here Peter Davies, from the National Association of Alienated Parents, investigates:

The way in which alienation cases should be dealt with in England and Wales has been galvanised in the high court in recent years. The high court’s approach has recently been, helpfully and clearly, ratified by the court of appeal in the most recent authority, Re S ( Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA CIV 568. 

The current president, Sir Andrew MacFarlane, had previously made no secret of his views on the way alienation cases were dealt with in the lead in period to him becoming president of the family division during the summer of 2018. In speeches to NAGALRO (the children’s guardian trade association) and FNF he shed light upon the ‘labels’ which were commonly used and why they were unhelpful. His message was clearly that ‘behaviour’ is far more important than how it is labelled. He also spoke of the inequity which exists between the ways in which parent / child relationships are severed in the world of public law and the private law equivalents of these cases. He concluded that in private law the severence of Parent / child relationships are generally not afforded the same degree of care, scrutiny or diligence as those in public law. We agree. Courts also behave far better when dealing with qualified advocates than they do when dealing with litigants in person.

It is a sad fact that in England and Wales most PA groups promote false hope amongst families and others affected by alienation. Whether their pet ideology is Dr Childress and his 3-step AB/PA formulation, Dr William Bernet et al and their 5-step formulation or Amy Baker’s 4-step formulation does not really matter because each of these mainstream formulations actually requires the proof of large numbers of sub-steps to prove PA when what the courts require, for them to order a change of residence for example, is simply proof of harm. Furthermore, the recent caselaw shows that courts have ordered changes of residence at a lower level than a diagnosis of PA or implacable hostility. In fact, there is now a litany of caselaw showing that, in cases where PA is accepted, it has often been found that the emotional harm of a prospective change of residence exceeds the harm caused by leaving the child in the dominant care of an abusive parent. Therefore, suggesting to parents that the route to recovering their children involves proving the existence of PA and a level of harm above that needed to trigger a change of residence, is cruelly misleading vulnerable people and potentially placing any hope of recovering their children at serious risk. When alienation is suspected there is no time to loose and spending valuable time focussing upon what you feel the court needs to know, in place of what the court wants to know, is a waste of valuable time and effort.

In this article we are reproducing excerpts, together with appropriate quotes, from published speeches and judgments. This is PRIMARY EVIDENCE. As evidence goes this is some of the most reliable and best evidence available to you. At worst it comes from the high court and the most recent authority comes from the court of appeal. The court of appeal is only outranked by the supreme court. It provides excellent authority insofar as any authority might carry weight in Children Act 1989 proceedings. 

I will explain in another article why precedent in the family court does not operate with the same effect as other courts. The Children Act 1989 is widely perceived as the holy grail of family law and has huge amounts of praise heaped upon it. However, our experience informs us that it stifles dissent, turns successful appeals into rare events and deprives family court decisions of the same levels of scrutiny which other branches of the law receive routinely. Lord Sumption, in giving judgment in the supreme court, expressed a view that, ‘…Courts exercising family jurisdiction do not occupy a desert island in which general legal concepts are suspended or mean something different.’ However, the hallowed and impregnable nature of the paramountcy principle has effectively smothered the usual evolution of the law by the incremental development of standards and norms via the normal conventions of precedent whilst affording excessive judicial discretion in place of clear and intelligible rules. Independence of the judiciary, intended to provide a check and balance to prospective tyrants, has therefore merely shifted tyranny downstream to the relatively unaccountable and cosseted lower family judiciary. Furthermore, as barrister Lucy Reed put it:

‘Family court rules designed to protect the privacy of vulnerable children come with a corollary: when something goes wrong, it is difficult to see it, talk about it or fix it.’

We aim to put this right by:

shining a light upon it;

opening the eyes of others;

shouting about it from the rooftops; and,

making sensible, practical and well-researched recommendations for putting things right.

This is what we are doing:

WE ARE diligently referencing cases which have been conducted by some of our most outstanding barristers and solicitors operating in the field of overcoming children’s refusal and reluctance to attend contact. Like ourselves, they are people that have SUCCEEDED to recover children in the family court. They are people who have ADAPTED to their situations in order to ACHIEVE the best outcomes for children. This is what we try to achieve with the parents we help.

WE ARE signposting you to the best information which you can get, from people with successful track records and it’s FREE.

WE ARE sharing what WORKED for us and what has been repeated by leading lawyers to work for others.

Here is what we are NOT doing:

WE ARE NOT vacuous people who think that, having failed in our own cases, we are instant experts who can influence and manipulate scores of desperate and highly vulnerable parents to follow in our footsteps.

WE ARE NOT trying to get you to part with money for information which can be freely accessed. We give our time freely to carry out diligent research and we work tirelessly to help parents apply what has worked for ourselves and others.

WE ARE NOT unquestioningly supporting the work of anyone: especially experts that have not lived through the alienation of their own children.

WE ARE NOT applying inaccurate or pejorative names to anyone. We criticise behaviour NOT people.

WE ARE NOT trying to flog you glossy click bait and dumpster filling written material nor are we interested in becoming part of any industry which does so.

WE ARE NOT trying to seduce you with our pet theories, labels and empty slogans. 

WE ARE NOT trying to entice vulnerable people with ‘David Brent’ style buzz words and inducements such as claims to being ‘passionate advocates’. Passionate merely means ‘having strong feelings and beliefs’. Anyone that has succeeded in the family courts will tell you freely that, “… Feelings and beliefs are worthless in that arena. Evidence is the ‘alpha and omega’ of what matters in the court arena and there is no substitute for diligent preparation and effective research”. Leave silly slogans where they belong: outside the court doors.

In the following paragraphs we have set out the events which were the precursors ro Re L and the line of influential judgments which followed and culminated with Re S. In this way we can clearly identify behaviour which has created problems and highlight behaviour which has solved problems.

FNF KEYNOTE SPEECH 2018

In his keynote address to the Families Need Fathers Conference on 25th June 2018, MacFarlane LJ ( as he was then) referred to the debate around ‘alienation’. He told the conference of how there as a similar debate involving the diagnosis of ‘Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy’.

He explained that, ‘…the focus of the Family Court,’ had ‘…rightly, moved away from any psychological/psychiatric debate in order to concentrate on the particular behaviour of the particular parent in relation to the particular child in each individual case. If the behaviour was found to be abusive then action was taken, irrespective of whether or not a diagnosis of a particular personality or mental health condition in the parent could be made.”

He added that,

In my view, “alienation” should be approached in the same way. From my experience as a first instance judge, albeit now more than 7 years ago, I readily accept that in some cases a parent can, either deliberately or inadvertently, turn the mind of their child against the other parent so that the child holds a wholly negative view of that other parent where such a negative view cannot be justified by reason of any past behaviour or any aspect of the parent-child relationship. Further, whether the state of affairs has come to pass, it is likely to be emotionally harmful for the child to grow up in circumstances which maintain an unjustified and wholly negative view of the absent parent.’

In other words;

the actual behaviours and whether they are abusive matters more than the labels applied to lists of behaviours; secondly,

he had personal experience of cases involving alienation; and thirdly, alienation, involving the creation of a negative image of a parent, is likely to cause emotional harm.

#parentalalienation #worldjustice #NAAP #PETERDAVIES #fightforourchildren

Walk For Forgotten Children – WATCH VIDEO INSIDE

Another 25th of April goes by, unable to march the streets due to the pandemic. Again a virtual event, parents, grandparent’s and family members ‘walking’ for the Forgotten Children.

The family courts allow people who don’t actually know, to believe that the parents denied contact are the parents.

After all, what judge would stop a good parent from having contact?

Ignorance?

NO!

It is the prime example of how family court ‘secret doors’ hide unnecessary child abuse. It’s allowed, promoted and – as sick as it is – reward. 

Lower court judges doing an inadequate job.

Shambolic to say the least … too much discretion, no rules, no law. Blatant misuse of power.

The judges are led by the ring in their noses by guardian lawyers who believe they are above the law. Court advisers like Cafcass determine a child’s future over a whatsapp call in the time it takes to cook a pizza.

Forgotten Children indeed.

In the best interest? How can these people determine what’s best for the children when they never explore and prefer to ignore?

Doesn’t matter, it will go away. You can hear them say.

Wishes and feelings?

The child is the last thing on their minds.

Ascertain wishes and feelings 

They can not be serious! The child is being unduly influenced, brainwashed and denigrated.

Come on! These kids need help not be ignored forgotten abandoned by a system that should be help.

Family court advisors FAIL

Judges FAIL

Social workers FAIL

Lawyers/barristers GREED

Aligned parents JUST DONT CARE

FORGOTTEN CHILDREN, HOW MUCH?

CHANGE CAN’T COME QUICK ENOUGH TO SAVE THE CHILDREN 

CHILDREN USED AS WEAPONS IN A SICK GAME IS CHILD ABUSE 

CHILDREN USED ARE CHILDREN ABUSED

Dishonesty means cheating, lying, being deliberately deceptive, lacking integrity, being corrupt and treacherous.

What is so sad is that most of us have had to deal with dishonest people throughout our lives. And some of us actually made them a big part of our lives.

I simply call them liars, cheats, thieves and bullies – but many of us prefer the almost Biblical term of narcissists … people who might have a strong personality but lack a core of decency.

Maddeningly their hand-mirror never reveals to themselves that they are fragmented and cracked.

Instead they see themselves as simply brilliant!

When people like us think of narcissists, we picture someone with an ego so inflated that they have to walk sideways to get their head through the door … we see someone bossy and arrogant, who needs to be right all the time, has a blubbery sense of self-importance and exaggerates their own talents and station in life.

He or she believes they can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people.

Narcissists and liars are the most pernicious and hostile of humans.

One I know claims to have had top celebs falling at his feet for many decades.

David Canter, a professor of psychology at the University of Liverpool, says: “If they are not stopped, it becomes part of their way of life…”

“They want people to believe they are police officers, government officials, journalists – but they are simply a public nuisance.”

And if you fall for their fatal false charms, they can become a toxic worm in your day to day life.

Sadly, research has shown that most people can’t spot liars. “Loads of research shows that even police officers can’t spot liars,” one researcher said.

Identifying a bullying cheating narcissistic liar isn’t always easy.

Here are some signs that may help you identify one wandering like an alien in your midst:

• they often talk about experiences and accomplishments in which they appear heroic
• they’re also the victim in many of their stories, often looking for sympathy
• their stories tend to be elaborate and very detailed
• they respond elaborately and quickly to questions, but the responses are usually vague and don’t provide an answer at all
• they may have different versions of the same story, which stems from forgetting previous details

A reader has shared this letter with the Preservation Society, describing the heartbreak and loss caused to his daughter and himself by parental alienation.

His daughter is in her early twenties now and they had lived within a few miles of each other throughout her life… despite this they didn’t see each other for almost two decades.

The relationship between Holly’s (not her real name) parents had been passionate but rocky and it was finally knocked out when he came home unexpectedly and found Holly’s mother in a compromising situation with her best friend.

The estranged dad believes the two women began a war of attrition against him to hide their relationship … they bad-mouthed him to his friends, his parents, his colleagues, his boss, the police and the CSA. He and his partner were regularly threatened and abused on the streets by the two women and their families.

And they lied to his daughter about him.

She became his punishment.

He was forced out of her life.

He had a breakdown…

Then, one day, Holly started work in a small town he frequented and they began bumping into each other. At first they pretended they hadn’t seen each other and walked past on the streets and in shops

This is his letter to his daughter – he had written others over the years to the people who drove him away – and wanted to share them with her… he believed it might help her understand why her dad left her.

Hi Holly

We passed each other again, like ships. And like you said in your Facebook post, it just isn’t a good thing.

We both have to decide what we really want, sadly though, and we know so little about each other that it’s difficult to know what to do.

I   know what will have been said about me and some of it will be true – but some of it will be misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

I guess what I’m offering is a chance for you to see my side of the story too. It doesn’t exonerate me or turn me into a hero but it might show you that I’m actually human.

I’m not trying to malign your mother in anyway and the letters I want to send you don’t do that. I hope that they show you that we fought long and hard to try and stick together.

But we couldn’t do it.  Linda and I failed together, neither of us failed on our own.

The real tragedy is that you were the victim of our failure and that makes me very sad. I wish it hadn’t happened to Linda and me but more than anything I wish it hadn’t happened to you.

Holly, all I can say is that it was impossible for Linda and I to stay together.

The first letter, to your mother, shows what we were both going through on the road to our break-up.

I don’t believe there is anything in there which would shock you, you’re obviously aware of Mary Hilton’s involvement in it all.

There were always three people in mine and Linda’s relationship and ultimately Mary won her over and took her from me. You’ve already written to me on Facebook saying in no uncertain terms that you see Mary as your second mother.

The second letter, was one written to the police and it tells exactly what Linda and I both went through after we broke up. It was horrendous … 

I don’t want to tell you any of this if it isn’t what you want but I know how important it is to know both sides of the story. I’m learning what happened to me now and having those missing pieces is a good thing … 

Finally knowing why you ended up with a father who lived up the road who you never ever saw could be a good thing for you too.

Maybe then we can smile at each other the next time we bump in to each other on the street or in the supermarket.

Holly and her father began meeting for coffee and communicated on social media. But the rift between them was too great and Holly started breaking their arrangements to meet up and they drifted apart again.

Ultimately Holly refused to read her father’s letters.