Bias in the family court? Or bias in court reporting?
As I have written previously, I believe a more transparent family law process, the publication of all judgements, will make visible the complexity of children’s experiences. With access to the facts, the data, an evidence base - we can begin to consider improvements to benefit children and families. But I’ve always had this niggling doubt … will this be so?
Publication of judgements is only one part of the transparency process. The other is their reporting in the press. And therein lies the problem. I am told good news is not news. When things plod along nicely, no-one wants to know. What grabs our attention is when things go wrong, or there is a perceived wrongdoing. This has been evident in the recent spate of articles in the Observer about parental alienation and unregulated experts.
Parental alienation was a feature too, in the recent judgement Warwickshire County Council v The Mother & Ors [2022] EWHC 2146 (Fam) (08 August 2022). The Twitterverse has a tendency to go bananas when “parental alienation” is mentioned – and this was no exception. I am minded of the trenches in Normandy during WW1. One side dug in deep – parental alienation is a tool used by abusive men. It is clear child Z was being abused by her father, isn’t it? She said so again and again. The other side firm – vengeful mothers turn children against their fathers. Child Z’s refusal and resistance, her vehement dislike, her alignment with her mother proves this is parental alienation doesn’t it? A vast, hazardous, no-man’s land stretching out between, where childhood is sacrificed on an altar of largely gendered ideology.
In this case, Child Z was not kept safe, so she was returned to a parent who had been found to have harmed her – her mother. Her trauma, her loss, her distress pushed uncomfortably to one side to be dealt with when she is older – maybe.
I expect no less from the mainstream media. They choose to support a dominant narrative that mothers are wronged in the family court. They elect to report on “problematic” cases in which the concept of parental alienation is raised and challenged by mothers who have been accused, and found, to have harmed their child.
I had hoped for more, perhaps naively, from an organisation which advocates for transparency – for “making family justice clearer”. I have been an avid fan of the Transparency Project for many years, but now wonder whether they have become aligned with a dominant ideological view? Julie Doughty has written widely about her views on the lack of evidence for the concept of parental alienation. While I don’t disagree with her choice to blog about the issue of unregulated experts (it concerns me too), I wonder whether her choice to report on the highly emotive and distressing published experience of Child Z, and not on other recent judgements, is indicative of bias, rather than transparency?
In J (A Minor), Re (Change of Interim Residence) [2022] EWFC 92 (28 June 2022) an urgent transfer of residence was ordered based on the recommendations from a global psychological assessment (by two HCPC registered psychologists) and a Section 37 report.
There has been parental alienation on the part of the mother which will cause significant harm to the child and the child has already suffered emotional and psychological harm in the care of his mother.
As well as concerns about gaslighting J – “I would have concerns that a child in that environment could experience emotional harm and have their lived experience misrepresented/denied” – mother was found to have failed to engage with alcohol services, despite evidence of chronic and excessive use of alcohol, and to have maintained a relationship with an abusive partner, seemingly unaware of the risks to her children.
In the fact finding judgement of GF v GM [2022] EWFC 85 (05 April 2022), we are introduced to Yasmin (now aged 6) and Xavier (now aged 4). They have not spent any time with their father for two and a half years. Mother made allegations of domestic abuse against father, and raised allegations of sexual abuse towards Yasmin – none of which were found by the court. The father did not ask the court to make any formal findings of fact against the mother, though the judge did consider whether the mother had deliberately manipulated Yasmin into making allegations and alienated the children from their father.
It is worth noting, that as far back as November 2019, a Local Authority social worker recommended starting supervised contact. The social worker also recorded her concerns about mother’s ongoing behaviour causing her daughter emotional harm. Mother did not support any direct contact. While there is acknowledgement of the ”egregious” delays in proceedings, not attributable to the parents, how can it be in a child’s best interest to have their relationship with a good enough parent disrupted for half, or more, of their young life?
I have yet to see the double page spread in the mainstream press about these children; no prominent blogs either. Of course - I may just have missed them. Or is it that they are not news? They don’t fit the dominant discourse. The less attention paid to them, the less fuss made, the better … Yes, let’s continue to publicise only those cases which can give our point of view some leverage …
Or wait! Perhaps, we can report on these - the mere mention of alienation alongside unfound allegations … surely, proof in itself that this is a concept used by abusive men who manipulate all of the professionals and the court?
Quite frankly – I really don’t care this is conceptualised. Call it parental alienation, gatekeeping, manipulation, family violence, undue influence, post-separation abuse, alienating behaviours, coercive control, protective parenting. But while the grown-ups are busy fighting over this – children are being harmed. We must acknowledge that sometimes mothers, and sometimes fathers, behave in a way that is harmful to their children. This behaviour has bugger all to do with what sex they are. Most often, those that engage in harmful behaviours have experienced harm themselves.
Can we please just call a cease fire! Let us have some compassion. Let’s start to support separating parents. Most mums, most dads, love their children. Let’s give them the help they need, to be the best parent they can be. Let’s help them to see the world through their child’s eyes.
Children, in the vast majority of circumstances, benefit from an ongoing healthy relationship with both of their parents.
I will be writing psychologically informed analyses of these three judgments in the coming weeks. They will eventually be widely available. However, please consider supporting this work by taking out a paid subscription. This will ensure early access to these and other psychologically informed articles in the future.