A Mother (Appeal: Alienating Behaviours: Fair Procedure) [2026] EWHC 783 (Fam)
In A Mother (Appeal: Alienating Behaviours: Fair Procedure) [2026] EWHC 783 (Fam), Poole J allowed a mother’s appeal against findings that she had engaged in alienating behaviours. The case provides important clarification on both the procedural fairness required before findings of alienating behaviour can be made and the correct application of the Family Justice Council’s December 2024 guidance.
The Court emphasised that a finding that a parent has made, or even fabricated, allegations against the other parent does not in and of itself establish alienating behaviour. Alienating behaviour must itself be alleged, particularised, and analysed through the framework identified by the Family Justice Council.
Background
The proceedings concerned ten-year-old twins, P and Q. The parents' relationship ended shortly after the children were born and there had been longstanding private law proceedings concerning them. Under a child arrangements order made in March 2023, the children were to live with both parents under a shared-care arrangement. In March 2024, however, the mother stopped the children's contact with their father following allegations she said the children had made.
The proceedings came before a Recorder in July 2025. Although the matter had originally been listed for a final hearing, the Children's Guardian had been unable to provide her final analysis. The Recorder therefore used the available hearing time to conduct a fact-finding hearing. Both parents had produced detailed schedules of allegations.
Importantly, the Recorder made a preliminary decision that he would not determine the father's allegations that the mother had caused the children emotional harm, persistently restricted their relationship with him, and engaged in psychologically manipulative behaviours which had caused their reluctance, resistance, or refusal to spend time with him. He nevertheless indicated that he would consider why the mother's allegations had arisen insofar as this “might feed into parental alienation” (para. 7).
The Recorder subsequently rejected the mother's allegations against the father. These included allegations concerning the father's alleged intoxication or “deep sleeps” while caring for the children, allegations of sexualised behaviour towards P and allegations concerning inappropriate images. Having dealt with those allegations, the Recorder went on to make findings of “parental alienation” against the mother.
The First Instance Finding of Parental Alienation
The Recorder referred to the three elements contained in paragraph 10 of the Family Justice Council's December 2024 guidance (para. 17). Before alienating behaviour can be established, the court must be satisfied that:
The child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent or carer;
that reluctance, resistance or refusal is not attributable to the behaviour of that parent, an appropriate justified rejection, or another factor such as the child's alignment, affinity or attachment; and
the other parent has engaged in behaviour which has directly or indirectly caused the child's reluctance, resistance or refusal.
Despite recording that the father himself was not seeking a finding of parental alienation because he did not believe the children were reluctant, resistant, or refusing to have a relationship with him, the Recorder proceeded to consider the three stages.
In relation to Q, he considered that the child's attitude towards his father had changed after contact stopped in March 2024. He concluded that this was not attributable to the father's behaviour and that the mother was the person capable of influencing Q. However, in relation to P, he expressly acknowledged that the position was “less clear” and that up-to-date evidence about her actual views of her father was required (para. 18). Nevertheless, the Recorder concluded that the elements of “parental alienation” had been established against the mother.
The resulting order recorded that the mother had fabricated the allegations to frustrate the father's contact and that all three elements of the FJC guidance had been satisfied. It also recorded concern about the resulting emotional harm to the children. At a subsequent case management hearing, the Recorder warned that if there was “the slightest appearance” of the mother frustrating the children's developing contact with their father, the court would have “no option” but to change the children's residence to the father.
The Appeal
The mother appealed on three grounds:
- First, that the Recorder was wrong to make findings of alienating behaviour. This included both procedural unfairness and substantive errors in his application of the FJC framework.
- Second, that the Recorder had erred in his treatment of her credibility and findings that she had fabricated allegations, including in his treatment of her ADHD.
- Third, that the reasons given for the finding of alienating behaviour were inadequate.
The Modern Approach to Alienating Behaviour
Poole J considered the Family Justice Council 2024 guidance alongside the President of the Family Division's decision in Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38. The modern approach begins with the child's unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent, rather than simply with competing allegations made by the adults.
Where that first element exists, the court should then ask whether the child's reaction is explained by the behaviour of the parent with whom they are reluctant to engage. Where allegations of domestic abuse arise, this includes considering whether the child's position is an appropriate justified reaction to that behaviour. If that does not explain the child's response, the court must consider other possible explanations, including ordinary attachment, affinity, and alignment. It is only once those explanations have been considered and excluded that the court moves to the third stage: whether the other parent has engaged in behaviours which directly or indirectly caused the child's reluctance, resistance, or refusal. The FJC guidance requires allegations of alienating behaviour to be evidenced in the same manner as other allegations of abuse. The person making the allegation must identify the conduct relied upon and the supporting evidence.
Procedural Unfairness
Poole J held that the procedure adopted at first instance was unfair. The father's pleaded case had included allegations which were, in substance, allegations of alienating behaviour. However, the Recorder had expressly ruled at the outset of the hearing that he would not determine those allegations. That removed alienating behaviour from the issues to be determined at the hearing. The Recorder's statement that he might consider matters which could “feed into parental alienation” did not provide adequate notice that the court might ultimately make a positive finding that the mother had engaged in alienating behaviour.
The mother had therefore prepared and presented her case on the basis that the father's allegations were not being tried. Poole J held: “Alienating behaviours are a form of abuse.” Accordingly, if such conduct is alleged and requires determination at a fact-finding hearing, the allegation must be properly identified and the evidence said to support it must be set out. Having explicitly taken the allegation off the agenda, it was contrary to the mother's Article 6 right to a fair hearing for the Recorder subsequently to make the finding against her (para. 27). The finding was therefore unjust due to the procedural irregularity and had to be set aside.
Fabrication Does Not Automatically Amount to Alienating Behaviour
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is Poole J's rejection of any automatic link between false allegations and alienating behaviour. He stated that: “An inference cannot be drawn from a finding that allegations of abuse by parent 1 are not proved, or even that they have been fabricated by parent 2, that parent 2 is, without more, guilty of alienating behaviour” (para. 37). The burden remains upon the party alleging alienating behaviour to prove it on the evidence.
This distinction was critical as the first instance reasoning largely treated the findings that the mother had fabricated certain allegations and sought to frustrate contact as establishing alienating behaviour. Poole J explained that even fabrication designed to prevent contact does not necessarily satisfy the FJC test. A parent may fabricate an allegation in order to prevent contact without causing the child themselves to become reluctant, resistant, or unwilling to have a relationship with the other parent. The necessary causal impact upon the child's relationship must therefore be demonstrated.
Errors in Applying the Three-Stage Test
Apart from procedural unfairness, Poole J found defects in the Recorder's analysis. The first stage had not been established in relation to P. The Recorder had expressly recognised that he required updated evidence about P's actual view of her father. Without finding that P was reluctant, resistant, or refusing to engage with her father, the first element of the FJC framework could not be satisfied. As Poole J put it, once that was apparent, “that should have been that”. No alienating behaviour finding could properly follow in relation to P.
The position regarding Q was different. Poole J accepted that there was sufficient material upon which the Recorder could find that the first stage had been satisfied. However, the second stage had not been properly considered. The Recorder had concluded that Q's changed attitude towards his father was not caused by the father's behaviour. That did not complete stage two. He was also required to consider whether Q's reaction might arise from some other explanation, including ordinary alignment, affinity, or attachment. There was a real possibility that such factors were relevant, yet they were not analysed. That was described as a fundamental error.
The third stage was also inadequately reasoned. The Recorder stated that the mother and those she permitted Q to see were the people capable of influencing him but failed properly to identify what behaviour by the mother had caused Q's reluctance, resistance, or refusal. It was not enough merely to identify the mother's control over contact or her fabrication of allegations. The necessary connection between identifiable alienating behaviours and the child's response had to be proved. The finding therefore could not stand. The reasoning was “fundamentally flawed and inadequately reasoned” (para. 43).
The Mother's Credibility and ADHD
The mother was unsuccessful on the second ground of appeal. Poole J rejected the contention that the absence of a ground rules hearing rendered the first instance process unfair. The mother had been legally represented, and the Recorder had been aware of, and taken account of, her vulnerability and ADHD. The Recorder had also been entitled to make findings that the mother had fabricated some allegations. Those conclusions fell within the “known parameters” of the fact-finding hearing and were supported by adequate reasoning (para. 35).
Decision
The appeal succeeded on grounds one and three. The finding of “parental alienation” was set aside. Ground two, concerning the Recorder's approach to credibility and fabrication, was dismissed, although the first instance order was corrected so that it accurately reflected what had actually been found. The substituted recital recorded that, in order to frustrate the father's contact with the children, the mother had fabricated allegations 2(a)–(f) and had encouraged Q to make the detailed allegation concerning the “deep sleep” incident. The case was remitted to the Family Court, but not to the same Recorder.
Poole J declined to order a fresh fact-finding hearing concerning alienating behaviour. Eight months had passed and circumstances had changed. The family court was instead directed to determine whether a further fact-finding exercise was necessary and, if so, whether it should take place separately or as part of the final hearing. Any future determination would have to take account both of the fabrication findings which remained in place and of the evidence gathered since July 2025.
