![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> A and B (Parental Alienation No.1) [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam) (25 November 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/3366.html Cite as: [2020] EWHC 3366 (Fam) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
FAMILY DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B
e f o r e :
(In Private)
____________________
THE FATHER |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
THE MOTHER |
Respondent |
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
____________________
BAZLEY
QC (instructed
by
Keystone Law) appeared on
behalf
of the Applicant.
MISS C. WOOD QC (instructed by
Sears Tooth) appeared on
behalf
of the
Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE KEEHAN:
INTRODUCTION
THE LAW
THE BACKGROUND
"In particular, I was left concerned that ChildB
is presenting with evidence of a depressive disorder.
Both
children present as highly anxious in their function as a
result
of
being
exposed to the
parental
conflict for most of their lives."
"Child A works very hard to please her motherby
fully taking part in the conflict. Child
B,
I think, has struggled to keep up with what his mother needs and, as a
result,
I think has
been
experienced
by
his mother as less helpful at times."
"Child A has a history ofbeing
overly involved in the
parents'
separation from very early on. In my opinion, that has had a significant impact on her emotional development. I think she is now presenting with evidence of (1) disordered attachment development and (2) increased risk of mental health problems. Child A is intellectually an able child and is socially able. However, she is pseudo mature.
By
that I mean she presents as if an adult. She talks about general day-to-day things in an adult-like manner and she acts as if she is equal with the adults that she is dealing with in her life. The difficulty for her, I think, has
been
that this strategy has not led to her needs
being
met. Rather, it
reassured
adults, particularly her
parents,
that she is doing fine. Thus, they placed expectations on her of coping with situations which were
beyond
her emotional age and ability. She is only 13. She is just entering adolescence, one of the most crucial and vulnerable times in a child's lifespan. She is carrying the
responsibility
of managing the
parental
conflict as she has done for a number of years. She also has a heightened sense of
responsibility
for her
brother
which, in my opinion, has now tipped into a need to control him in order to make sure that he also
rejects
his father. Child A has
been
allowed to take up this position within the family and is not
being
challenged
by
her mother. It has
been
![]()
recognised
![]()
by
her father
but
he has felt helpless to effect change for her as he has also
remained
locked in conflict with The Mother. It is going to
be
extremely important for Child A that her
parents
now
recognise
that the way they have finished their separation has caused her emotional harm."
"In my opinion, Child A is triangulated within theparental
conflict. Currently, she has taken up a role whereby she is the one maintaining the conflict with The Father which allows The Mother to stand
back
and appear to
be
the
reasonable
adult who wants to end the conflict. The Mother would state, however, it is impossible for her to do that as the children are
refusing
to see their dad. Thus, she cannot do anything to effect change. Child A has had to develop a complex attachment strategy in order to survive in this environment. In my opinion, in her
relationship
with her mother The Mother, she is presenting with a compulsive compliant compulsive caregiving attachment theory. Children who develop this attachment pattern do so in the face of persistently unavailable care. It also develops from children who have to manage unpredictable
but
![]()
repeated
danger.
Parental
conflict post-separation is one of the most dangerous environments children have to survive. They learn that it is
best
not to present their needs or to distress adults. At
best,
it may not elicit any
response.
At worse, it could provoke attack. Children develop the strategy of
being
pleasing and helpful as a means of understanding."
"In summary, Child A isbeing
emotionally harmed
by
![]()
being
triangulated within the
parental
conflict. She is an extremely vulnerable girl although she presents as if an adult, she is 13 years old. Emotionally, I think she is functioning at a much younger level
because
her
parents
have not
parented
her in a way to allow her to develop emotional maturity. She is socially able
but
not emotionally able to manage. As a
result,
she says things that lack credibility to prove her point. She presents a picture of her father which does not match how he presents as a dad. She is extremely vulnerable as a
result
of this situation."
"Child A is at risk of developing depression and anxiety as an adolescent and an adult. These experiences risk impacting on her capacity to form saferelationships.
She is at high risk of developing abusive
relationships
as an adult and of struggling as a
parent
herself. Her
parents
need to effect significant change soon in order to mitigate against the emotional harm that has already
been
done to Child A and her capacity to manage in
relationships."
"In terms of acute mental health, I was most concerned about ChildB.
Child
B
is a 10-year-old
boy
who, in my opinion, is presenting with (1) disordered attachment development and (2) depressive disorder. Like his sister, he is currently the centre of an extremely conflictual
parental
separation and subject to ongoing court proceedings. Child
B
was 2 when his
parents
separated. Prior to the separation, he spent 16 months away from them in the care of his maternal grandparents. When they came
back
from Russia and the
parents
split soon afterwards, I wonder if either of them had
been
left with feelings of guilt that perhaps it was their fault. In my opinion, Child
B
is also presenting with a compulsive compliant compulsive caregiving attachment strategy. At the moment, he has to
reject
his father
because
that is what is
required
![]()
by
his sister and mother. However, I think he is
really
struggling with that task. In the past, Child A dealt with a lot of the issues. This time, he is expected to
be
more actively
rejecting.
Thus, I think it is having a significant impact on him emotionally."
"In summary, ChildB
presents as a child who has an insecure attachment
relationship
with
both
his
parents.
He also sees his sister as a
parental
figure
but
she also makes him anxious. Therefore, he has no one to whom he can express any feelings of loss for his dad. He sees no possibility for change in his father which is his sister's position also. He did not think that anything could happen that he could forgive his father
but
as we spoke about this, he
became
increasingly dysfluent.
By
the end, he was just staring at himself in the mirror. I think he had emotionally shut down. I was concerned for his mental health. I was concerned at Child
B's
mental health having met with him. I think there is evidence of depressive disorder. This was mainly manifested when he talked about school. He
broke
down completely and tears were rolling down his face. Child
B
told me, 'Everyone thinks I'm disgusting.' He does not feel he can tell anyone about it. He feels that people are physically moving away from him and they do not want to
be
close to him. I think there is a risk that he is projecting the loss of his father into school and acting it out there. Sadly, his mother is minimising of this and so he has to deal with the distress himself."
"In summary, I think he is depressed. I think there is a risk he wishes he was dead. In my opinion, ChildB
is
really
missing his father
but
feels hopeless and helpless that he can change. The evidence from meeting Child A last week is that the children
remain
highly anxious and the meeting was controlled
by
The Mother. In my opinion, it was not a genuine attempt on her part to help
repair
the situation and it will not help the children to progress on the
basis
that they need to make things work."
"There is also a very short window of opportunity torepair
Child A's
relationship
with her father given her age and life stage, and, in this case, the sibling dynamic complicates matters. Child
B
would
be
more likely to settle on his own
but
leaving Child A with her mother would entrench her
alienation
such that the court might
be
forced to look at the possibility of interim foster care with a temporary 90 full protective separation from the mother in
respect
of
both
children."
"If, however, what we are seeing is thebeginning
of a genuine paradigm shift in The Mother as a
result
of a combination of absorption of material in Dr
Butler's
![]()
report,
intense therapy, and the process of assessment itself, there is merit in giving mother an opportunity to put substance to her claims in practice."
"We have extended the trial phases in the hope ofbeing
able to withdraw gently. We wanted to confidently
recommend
a permanent 50/50 care arrangement for this family. Whilst matters are much improved with the children in a position of a more
regulated
![]()
relationship
with their father, the dynamics
remain
the risks of
regression
![]()
back
to
rejection
of the father are still unacceptably high so that it has not
been
possible to withdraw or make this firm
recommendation.
Extending of the trial again, however, is unlikely to give court any further information on the family dynamic nor is it likely to produce significant change in any sensible timescales so as to increase our confidence in the sustainability of the current arrangements. Our view now, after 15 months' involvement, is that ongoing proceedings are unhelpful for these children who need a decision on a more permanent arrangement to support them through the difficult teenagers. We have worked hard to support equal joint care with variable success
reflecting
carefully on whether any other arrangement might
be
more sustainable. In doing so, we noted the dynamics of this particular family; the life stage of these children; the scars of
alienation
in
both
children and their father; their lasting preference for the maternal family; the proximity of the
parents'
home; and our concerns around further incidents of splitting with increasingly dim prospects of
resettling
the children with each crisis encountered. Despite our
best
efforts, we have not
been
able to arrive at a point where we can confidently guarantee the sustainability of any child arrangement as each option contains its own set of issues for this family. We therefore
respectfully
set out our thinking in
relation
to the
benefits
and risk of each, as we see it, leaving the court to decide, on
balance,
which one is likely to
be
most sustainable and therefore in the children's
best
interests."
"DrButler
expressed concerns about Child
B's
mental health last year saying that he was suffering from depressive disorder as a
result
of his triangulation and loss of his father, suggesting that if there is any evidence that his mental health is deteriorating, I would
recommend
he is pleased with his father and therapeutic support would
be
provided for The Father to care for him. Given the extent of splitting seen again in Child
B
![]()
recently,
Karen [that is Ms Woodall] is very concerned that he would
be
unlikely to
be
![]()
resettle
a third time in any joint care arrangement losing his
relationship
with his father. Child A, whilst currently looking more stable and presenting well, may
be
overcompensating to make things work for her mum and
remains
at risk. Child
B
may heal
but
should there
be
further occurrence of severe splitting in either child, the potential insurmountable challenge of yet another
reintegration
at that stage means the court may, under such conditions, need immediate consideration of a
residence
transfer to help the children
retain
their
relationship
with their father. Whilst this is also not guaranteed to
be
effective or sustainable for these children for the
reasons
outlined, Dr
Butler
raised serious child protection issues last June which have not entirely disappeared. In the context of further significant difficulty in the future, a transfer of
residence
may still present a
better
prospect of a more normal life for these children than the draconian solution of
removal
into foster care independently managed
by
the local authority to secure access to
both
![]()
parents."
"This incident, when analysed within the overall chronology of events leading to it, demonstrates that not only has much effortbeen
needed so that it
remained
impossible to withdraw
but
it has taken very little to completely destabilise the
relationship
![]()
between
Child
B
and his father with a high risk of
repeated
![]()
rejection
of the father moving forward."
"Itbecame
apparent that Child
B
was entering into the severely split state of mind which is seen when children decide for themselves they must take control of the family system. In meeting with Dr
Braier
and his mother, Child
B
showed that he could not listen to either feeling none of the adults understood him. The
breach
of
parental
and adult authority in his life is deeply worrying at his age and demonstrates the risk that Child
B
may go
beyond
![]()
parental
control should this family system
become
destabilised again. The fact that this happened whilst professionals with expertise in working in these scenarios were heavily involved with the family is deeply concerning.
Restarting
the
relationship
![]()
between
a child and a
parent
after they have
become
![]()
alienated
from is possible once and even twice. However, without our considerable input in this second eruption of Child
B's
![]()
rejecting
![]()
behaviour,
this could not have
been
achieved. I very much doubt it would
be
possible to achieve it again should there
be
another instance of
rejection
which raises safeguarding concerns. Given Child
B's
age, if he
returns
to
rejecting
his father as a method of coping with the dynamics around him and the impact of
being
![]()
alienated
once, there is a risk he may not
be
in a place where the
relationship
with his father can
be
![]()
repaired
in his minority years. We have seen manageable slippage in Child A
but
in such circumstances, it is likely to
be
much harder for Child A to get over any such slippages to sustain her own
relationship
with the father. The risk is of her entering into alignment with the mother. Voting with her feet and
rejecting
her father will
be
significantly raised. Children who are split can
become
extremely rigid in their
belief
that they have the right to do as they feel
resisting
very strongly any attempts to
restore
the
relationship
with a targeted
parent.
This can sometimes extend to
both
![]()
parents
maintaining the
belief
that no one is listening to them, escalating
resistance
to all efforts to intervene. In such situations, children can move
beyond
![]()
parental
control to the point where the risks are so high that
removal
into foster care may
be
the only viable option."
"There is arepeated
theme of The Mother of inability to make decisions which are in the
best
interests of the children. The Mother has had to have significant input to
be
able to make even the simplest of decisions. Whilst this may
be
put down to The Mother's anxiety about wanting to get it right, there is also a sense of abdication of
parental
![]()
responsibility
to professionals and at times to The Father. Again, one could argue this is
because
The Mother is anxious about
being
scrutinised. However, during times when Ms Woodall has stepped
back
and enabled Ms The Mother to take a more free
rein
approach, encouraging her to write emails herself and engage with The Father directly, it has
become
apparent how difficult The Mother finds it to make child focused decisions about what is right for the children in the range of circumstances."
"The Mother has worked hard and is no longer an active negative influencebut,
in many ways, her
responses
are not necessarily very different to what was seen in 2018. The Mother wants to do the right thing and
be
seen to
be
doing so. As such, can do this very well, taking advice in the moment from others and acting on it
but
we had
been
hoping she would have developed her own
repertoire
a little further. In using not only myself, Karen, or her own therapist
but
also Carol Edwards, she is not developing, learning, or generalising sufficiently. This is the case despite
repeated
attempts to get her to focus on absorbing principles rather than rules, to enable her support of the whole situation to
become
more natural and emotionally congruent, rather than needing to
be
scripted. The Mother's strategy in seeking and implementing advice as faithfully as possible to ensure she avoids errors may provide sensible and helpful in the moment
responses
![]()
but
also
results
in splitting the larger support team around her to include those without a holistic view of the family dynamics. As such, The Mother unwittingly worsened the problem of inconsistency already produced
by
her own changing moods or priorities rather than working from core principles. Understanding The Mother's struggle here may
be
helped
by
a
reminder
of her psychological profile. I have never
believed
The Mother was consciously deceiving
but
it is hard for those with histrionic features like her to admit their mistakes. More preoccupied with the impression they make than their actions, they will typically selectively filter finding justifications for their own
behaviour,
literally forgetting what they do, not want to know, say things which are not true without actually
being
aware of it. That is not in the sense of awkwardness of lying or a
bad
conscience
because
they are generally sincere in the moment and
believe
their own accounts. They are simply unpredictable and changeable tending to
repress
matters which contradict their self-perception, current mood, attitudes or values, marshalling narratives to suit the moment. At their
best,
people with this profile are spontaneous, creative, high achievers, who are super friendly and nice inspiring others with their emotions, easily infatuated and highly engaged with new people or ideas with passion
but
may just as easily
become
![]()
bored
or lose interest in previous ones so they seem inconsistent in this way too.
Recall
of misdeeds, mistakes, or different attitudes is no longer there in consciousness, so that people with this profile often present as earnest and offended, their lack of insight and self-justification leaving them with no sense of embarrassment, only hurt about
being
![]()
blamed,
seen as inconsistent, or questioned at all. When accused, they may dismiss the problem with indignation
by
using
rejection
dynamics identifying examples of the accuser of engaging in the alleged abuse, if not instead then at least as much. The Mother's
behaviour
on the night [that is 6 October] was outstanding in getting Child
B
home, as was her participation in the
repair
in my consulting rooms, even if she omitted to tell anyone that she had failed to proactively inform The Father and Child A of Child
B's
distressed texts and calls to her that night
before
he ran out. However, having
responded
to the crisis, when it died down, she
re-framed
her narrative with several threats implicating The Father as failing to engage in sensible actions typically
but
not exclusively suggested
by
her to prevent the incident thereby implicating The Father and exonerative herself. This, together with a
refusal
to collaborate with any possibility that she herself had any
relevant
stressors nor, indeed, could have acted in any way other than perfectly in the summer lead up meant her acknowledgement of
responsibility
for Child
B's
![]()
rejection
of his dad then felt somewhat hollow. One of the problems with this profile in the current family dynamic is their capacity to sense who they are talking to and adapt their narrative, sincerely say what they feel that person wants to hear. The problem is that when exposed to a different audience, they can formulate very different ideas depending on the situation. This helps to understand how The Mother is genuinely doing her
best
and making significant efforts when she speaks to Karen, to The Father, and to the children
but
manages to produce quite a different narrative as needed. She truly wants to get it right all round to please the children, The Father, and the professionals
but
struggles to integrate what she needs to do. She cannot please everyone or create a consistent enough narrative to suit in the way others can when they emanate from core principles of their own internal coherent compass."
THE EVIDENCE
(a) In relation
to her move to Marylebone, she told me she did not think it was a
big
issue. Later in her evidence, she accepted it had
been
a mistake
but
could not give a credible explanation of why she had pursued the move even after the father had sent her an email in which he had made a perfectly
reasonable
and polite
request
for her not to move to Marylebone;
(b)
Further, when attempting to explain her move to the same area of London as the father, she implied that Ms Woodall had supported her plan, when I accept that Ms Woodall most assuredly had not done so;
(c) The mother had asserted that everything had changed since the summer of 2019 and that the children had been
stable. In light of the events of the last 15 months and the opinions of Dr
Braier
and Ms Woodall, nothing could
be
further from the actuality of this case; and
(d) The mother's case that the 50-50 shared care arrangements should continue because
it worked flew in the face of all the other evidence presented to me and was patently not achievable.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
(a) Dr Braier
and Ms Woodall's final
report
had
been
received
just four working days
before
this final hearing;
(b)
There had
been
insufficient time for the mother to absorb the full content of the
report
come;
(c) There were issues about the context of some of Ms Woodall's opinions and conclusions which the mother wished to challenge;
(d) The mother wished to file further evidence but
had not had time to do so; and
(e) As a result,
the mother would not
be
afforded an Art. 6 compliant fair hearing.
(1) A full transfer to the father's care with only supervised or monitored contact with the mother;
(2) Shared care on an 80/20 basis
in favour of the father;
(3) A 70/30 basis;
(4) A 65/35 basis;
or
(5) The present shared care of 50/50.
(a) She has caused and is causing them emotional and psychological harm by
alienating
or splitting the children from their father; and
(b)
They
remain
vulnerable to her changes of mood and
behaviour
most especially Child A.
(a) Child A and/or Child B
will once again
be
alienated
or split from their father with the consequence that it will not then
be
possible to
repair
the
relationship
between
them; and/or
(b)
The adverse consequences of their
alienation
from their father would
render
one or
both
of them
beyond
the control of either
parent
and/or
results
in the decision that one or
both
of them in their welfare
best
interests
be
placed in foster care.
I agree with Dr Braier
that such an outcome would
be
a disaster for these
bright
and intelligent children.
(a) One or other of the children rejecting
the very limited contact with their mother and voting with their feet and leaving their father's care and/or disengaging with him; and
(b)
Contact with the mother taking place at such a frequency and for such a prolonged period that the mother's malign influence
results
in the children
being
once again
alienated
or split from their father.
(1) The children shall live with their father;
(2) For the first month of this regime,
the mother shall have no contact with the children. The only proviso is that if the mother accepts my judgment and Ms Woodall considers it in the
best
interests of the children, there may
be:
(i) A telephone callbetween
the children and the mother supervised
by
Ms Woodall in the days after my judgment for the mother to
reassure
the children that she is well; and
(ii) If Ms Woodall considers it appropriate, a telephone callbetween
the children and the mother over the Christmas period, supervised
by
Ms Woodall or, if she agrees,
by
Mrs
Blank;
(3) After this period of one month and assuming all has gone well, the mother should have supervised contact, preferably supervised by
Ms Woodall, once every three weeks for a period of four hours;
(4) After a further period of three months, the mother shall have staying contact with the children once every three weeks from a Friday evening until a Sunday evening; and
(5) The mother will have staying contact in the holidays thereafter, one week at Christmas, one week at Easter, and for two weeks on two separate occasions during the summer school holiday.
CONCLUSION
Transcribed ![]() ![]() Official Court ![]() 5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 civil@opus2.digital |