I believe the family justice system is failing too many children.
The consequences of this are profound and, in many cases, life-changing.
When parents separate and disputes over children arise, the family courts should provide a safe, balanced route to arrangements that protect a child’s welfare.
Yet too often, those courts do not function in the best interests of the very children they are supposed to protect and serve.
Allegations of domestic abuse feature in a significant proportion of private law cases, often estimated to be as high as 62 percent. Yet these concerns are increasingly met with counter-allegations of so-called parental alienation. Often presented as a syndrome, it has no sound basis in law or medicine. Despite this, it continues to shape decisions in family courts, frequently through the influence of expert witnesses whose credibility and regulation are, at best, inconsistent.
It is important to recognise and applaud the many dedicated professionals whose thoughtful and effective work supports the family court system. At the same time, to protect the integrity of that work, we must be willing to robustly challenge those who may not bring the same level of expertise or even understanding.
A child’s voice must be at the heart of proceedings. However, too often that voice is dismissed or reframed. In practice, when a child resists contact with a parent against whom abuse has been alleged, this response is sometimes interpreted not as a potential indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation by the other parent. That twisting of logic is deeply troubling.
The role of expert witnesses in these cases raises further concern. Some lack appropriate qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Even among those who are regulated, oversight can be slow and ineffective, with complaints taking years to resolve while practitioners continue to operate.
Proposed reforms in this area risk missing the point: The problem is not confined to unregulated experts but extends to the reliance on a flawed and harmful theory.
The consequences of this approach are not abstract. They are felt in the lives of families. Evidence from the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report shows that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted without robust scrutiny, while claims of domestic abuse are too readily discounted. In some cases, this has led to children being removed from a parent who has raised credible abuse concerns.
One of my constituents experienced this firsthand. After raising allegations of domestic abuse, she saw parental alienation introduced into proceedings at a later stage, ultimately resulting in her children being removed from her care. Her experience is not an isolated one. Research by the non-profit organisation Right to Equality surveyed 217 mothers involved in private law proceedings and found that 342 children had been removed from their care. These figures point to a pattern that should give us pause.
Individual stories bring this issue into even sharper focus. Julia Margo, co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, endured years of litigation after discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse. Despite this, he pursued contact through the courts repeatedly. Thirty-seven times, in fact. Throughout that process, she felt that her concerns were marginalised, and that the system was more preoccupied with the risk of alienation than the safety of her children being left with a paedophile.
In another case, a 10-year-old child was removed from her mother at barely half-an-hours’ notice. She described hastily packing her belongings and leaving behind a treasured soft toy as a gesture of comfort for her mother, only for this act to be later used as evidence against her. The child went on to describe years of not being believed, even in the face of findings of abuse. The fear she expressed of her father was dismissed as a product of her mother’s influence, with the court ultimately ordering that she went to live with him.
These cases illustrate a system in which the child’s lived experience can be overshadowed by theoretical constructs. However, there are signs of change. A recent landmark judgment by the President of the Family Division overturned findings of parental alienation in a case where a mother had been separated from her children for five years. That decision, informed by updated guidance from the Family Justice Council, signals an important shift towards a more evidence-based and child-focused approach.
Yet progress remains uneven. For many families, the route to justice through appeal is complex, slow and often out of reach. Recognising these barriers, I have been working to advance reforms through the Courts and Tribunals Bill. My proposal introduces a statutory presumption at the outset of proceedings, prioritising the child’s safety before decisions about residence are made. The aim is to prevent harm, rather than rely on remedies afterwards.
I welcome steps already taken, including moves to repeal the presumption of parental involvement under the Children Act 1989 and the national rollout of child-focused courts. These are important developments. But a critical question remains: How should the court treat a child’s resistance to contact where abuse is alleged? Current practice too often defaults to suspicion of the protective parent, rather than careful consideration of the child’s perspective.
This must change. Allegations of parental alienation cannot be allowed to overshadow or undermine concerns about abuse. Children who speak about their experiences must be heard, not dismissed or hear their words misinterpreted. The family justice system must evolve to reflect that principle.
Ultimately, this is about restoring trust in a system that families rely on at moments of extreme vulnerability. It is about ensuring that decisions are grounded in evidence, not pseudoscience, and that the rights and voices of children are given the weight they deserve. Anything less risks perpetuating harm. That is something no justice system should accept.
