Reported cases rarely have memorable titles. However Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] will undoubtedly resonate for years to come for practitioners.
The case involved parental alienation, expert evidence, domestic abuse and child removal.
Legal Points
What happened?
Sir Andrew McFarlane set aside core factual findings made between 6 and 7 years ago and found the approach ‘fundamentally flawed’.
The facts
Proceedings had begun in 2018. Separated parents of two children (then 12 and 9) could not agree over contact (or time spent with) the children. Allegations were made against both sides. In 2019 the family court judge removed the children from their mother’s care and relocated them to their father.
How did it go so wrong?
A number of issues were identified by the President of the Family Division. Firstly the process failed to give proper priority to the children’s welfare. It also did not follow well established guidance on the thorny issue of ‘parental alienation’. Secondly the psychologist’s conclusions were not valid as she lacked the necessary qualifications. In addition no other evidence was heard (including a fact finding hearing) and her analysis dominated the proceedings.
Who was to blame?
Cafcass, the local authority, the children’s solicitor and the court all had a part to play.
Lessons to be learned
The judgement aligns with the recent Family Justice Council Guidelines on alienating behaviours. Specifically evidence has to be heard by the court to ascertain if and what abuse has been proved before the term alienation can be found. In addition caution should be adopted in the appointment and use of psychological experts, especially unregulated ones.
Wider significance and lessons to be learned
The decision is regarded as a watershed moment in how family courts handle alienation claims, domestic abuse issues and expert evidence. There is now firm guidance that deals with procedural and evidential expectations for future case of this type.
A Few Thoughts
English law is all about evidence. It’s the obvious but crucial pillar of our legal process. Alongside this runs the principle the of adversarial rather than the inquisitorial. However this is all very well but what is the human cost to all of this? It is the parents and more importantly the children who have all undoubtedly suffered from this unfortunate situation.
A Glimpse of Light?
The legal process, though slow in this case has prevailed in that guidance has been given to all practitioners. Lessons have been learned. How often have we heard that phrase before?
