Mother loses care of her son after alienating him against father

March 10, 2020

 

A mother has had to forfeit the residential care of her son after she tried to alienate him from his father.

 

The case involved a boy who lived with his mother but had regular contact with his father and his paternal family.

 

However, from March 2018, there had been no direct contact between father and son, and communications from the boy toward the father had become inexplicably hostile.

 

The father applied for a child arrangements order, seeking a transfer of his son’s residence to him on the basis that the mother had alienated the boy against him.

 

An expert in the field of parental alienation produced a report which concluded that the mother had alienated the boy from the father; that he was likely to continue suffering significant social harm with the current arrangements; and that it was very likely that, if he remained with the mother, he would not enjoy a relationship with his father.

 

A transfer of residence was therefore found to be the only feasible route to re-unification with the father, and the only means by which the boy could have relationships with both parents.

 

The High Court ruled in favour of the father. It held that the mother had plainly alienated him against his father. There was no other cogent explanation for the breakdown in contact. As a direct consequence, he was suffering emotional and social harm, and if the situation was allowed to continue, he would suffer adverse consequences throughout his life.

 

The only means by which he could have a full relationship with both parents was to make a child arrangement order for residence with the father.

 

There was a risk that the boy would suffer trauma and emotional harm as a consequence, and a risk that he would not settle or that he might abscond from the father's home. However, when those potential adverse consequences were balanced against the short and long-term benefits of having a loving and beneficial relationship with both parents, the balance fell decisively in favour of ordering him to live with his father.

 

During the transition period, it would be contrary to his welfare to have any direct contact with the mother for three months.

 

If you would like more information or advice about the issues raised in this article, or any aspect of family law please contact our expert legal team on 0208 004 0065, by email at hello@southgate.co.uk or using the form below.

 

Case Citations: [2019] EWHC 2723 (Fam) RE H (A BOY) (PARENTAL ALIENATION), PA v (1) TT (2) H (A BOY THROUGH HER BOYREN'S GUARDIAN) (2019) Fam Div (Keehan J)

 

The contents of this article is general information only. The information in this article is not legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this article was published.  Readers should not act on the basis of the information included and should obtain independent expert advice from qualified solicitors such as those within our firm.

 

Share on Facebook
Tweet
Please reload

What We Offer You

Expert

Solicitors

Price

Promise

Skype

Meetings

Free

Chat

Out of Hours

Appointments

Quick

Responses

No Hidden

Fees

Modern

Service

Expedited

Services

Law Society

Accreditation

Do you need to discuss your family law matter with a solicitor?
Call us now or send an enquiry below to discuss your options!

Third Floor, Crown House, 47 Chase Side, London, N14 5BP

Tel: 0208 004 0065 - Email: hello@southgate.co.uk

southgate solicitors is a trading name of Southgate Solicitors Limited Company No: 10575376 - Registered Office at above address

We are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority No: 636415

All prices displayed are inclusive of VAT.

VAT No: 263804305

Privacy Terms of Use - Complaints Process

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon