Written evidence (CFA0057)

 

HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY


Introduction:

  1.              As a mother who has been drastically failed by the family courts where the Children and Families Act 2014 has been shown no regard (Particularly section 11), I felt compelled to submit evidence for the inquiry into the Children and Families Act 2014.
     
  2.              My name is *** and I submit this evidence for the reason of trying to impact change for our future generations from my own experience.
     
  3.              Below I have included a one page summary followed by my submission of evidence.


 

Summary:

  1.              It will be of knowledge to the lords that the term and ideology of “Parental Alienation” is used against protective parents who have suffered abuse in family court. The theory indicates that the protective parent is emotionally abusive by brainwashing and coaching a child to make allegations. It is theory devised by the late Dr Gardner of America, who reported that some children enjoy being abused. The theory holds no medical or scientific evidence and is not supported by the European Parliament or the World Health Organization. Yet is is recognised that the term and theory is used by abusive parents to defend genuine allegations of abuse. The UK family Courts are one of the only states within Europe that still rely on the theory of “alienation” to stop or reduce contact between the protective parent and their child/children. The use of this theory undermines the Children and Families Act 2014, particularly when it should be applied within Family Court proceedings.

 

  1.              Section 11 of The Children and Families Act 2014 states as follows:

 

  1.              Where the theory of PA is used within the Family Court and where a protective parent is subjected to alienation findings from the Court (which stand as law) the child’s contact with that parent is restricted. Parents subjected to Parental Alienation findings are not treated with respect given the theory holds no awful, scientific or medical evidence.

 

  1.              Where Domestic Abuse allegations are sought, Alienation allegations are used to counter the domestic abuse allegations by the alleged perpetrator.

 

  1.              Courts do not have an understanding of domestic abuse, nor how abusers seek control via the Family Courts to continue perpetrating their abuse. Due to this, children’s true needs and welfare are ignored, the children are placed at risk of harm and in some cases exposed to harm, completely undermining the Families and Children Act 2014 alongside the The Children Act 1989.  This follows into children being removed from the protective parent and placed into care – sometimes on an interim basis and sometimes resulting in permanency and forced adoption.


     

Evidence Submissions:

  1.              In the report of Sturge and Glaser 'Contact and Domestic Violence – The Experts' Court Report' [2000] Fam Law 615 which report on the cases Re L (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re V (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re M (Contact: Domestic Violence); Re H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000]  2 FLR It is stated:

      “(iv) Where there is a case of Parental Alienation. Parental Alienation Syndrome does not exist in the sense that it is: not recognised in either the American classification of mental disorders (DSMIV) or the international classification of disorders (ICD10); not generally recognised in our or allied child mental health specialities” .

 

  1.         In the same case Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P stated:

    “Dr Lowenstein has been closely associated with recognition of this syndrome. He recommended therapy, at least six sessions to be conducted by himself, followed by a further report. Since it was therapy, there would be problems in financing the               therapy and subsequent report. The judge did not accept the unsubstantiated assertion of the court welfare officer as to emotional abuse of G. He was equally unhappy about the findings and conclusions of Dr Lowenstein. In the report of Dr Sturge and Dr Glaser, they indicated that parental alienation syndrome was not               recognised in either the American classification of mental disorders or the international classification of disorders. It is not generally recognised in psychiatric or allied child mental health specialities. It would be fair to say that Dr Lowenstein is at one end of a broad spectrum of mental health practitioners and that the existence of parental alienation syndrome is not universally accepted.”

 

  1.         FPR 1991 r 9.5 was also suggested as a way forward in Re C (Children)(Prohibition on Further Applications) [2002] EWCA Civ 292, where Butler-Sloss LJ gave directions to Cafcass ‘with a view to looking at the entire family to see whether there is any way out of the problems’.

 

  1.         The European Parliament resolution of 6 October 2021 on the impact of intimate partner violence and custody rights on women and children (2019/2166(INI)) take the concept of Parental Alienation and relate it to a continuation of power and control used by abusive fathers against mothers, at paragraph U:

    “whereas two of the most prestigious institutions on mental health, the World Health Organization and the American Psychological Association, reject the use of the so- called parental alienation syndrome and similar concepts and terms, since they can               be used as a strategy against victims of violence by putting into question the victims’ parental skills, dismissing their word and disregarding the violence to which children are exposed; whereas according to the EDVAW Platform recommendation, accusations of parental alienation by abusive fathers against mothers must be considered as a continuation of power and control by state agencies and actors, including those deciding on child custody.”
     
  2.         And further at paragraph 41 of the same document:

    “Expresses its concern about the impact of gender stereotypes and bias               leading to inadequate responses to gender-based violence against women and to a lack of trust in women, in particular concerning presumed false allegations of child abuse and of domestic violence; is also concerned about the lack of specific training for judges, prosecutors and law professionals; stresses the importance of measures aimed at combating gender stereotypes and patriarchal biases through education and awareness-raising campaigns; calls on the Member States to monitor and fight               the culture of denigration of women’s voices; condemns the use, assertion and acceptance of non-scientific theories and concepts in custody cases which punish               mothers who attempt to report cases of child abuse or gender-based violence by               preventing them from obtaining custody or by restricting their parental rights; stresses that so-called parental alienation syndrome and similar concepts and               terms, which are generally based on gender stereotypes, can work to the detriment of women victims of intimate partner violence by blaming mothers for their children’s               ‘alienation’ from their father, calling into question victims’ parental skills, disregarding the children’s testimony and the risks of violence to which their children are exposed, and jeopardising the rights and safety of the mother and children; calls on               the Member States not to recognise parental alienation syndrome in their judicial practice and law and to discourage or even to prohibit its use in court proceedings,               particularly during investigations to determine the existence of violence”.

 

  1.         Attention should be drawn to the Ministry of Justice Harm Panel Report of June 2020:

    “The panel received evidence from victims and professionals that domestic abuse is often not seen as relevant to whether the abusive partner is a ‘good enough’ parent, and as a result, the motives of victims raising abuse may come under suspicion. Professionals and victims told the panel that victims were perceived as being motivated by a desire to turn the child against the other parent, rather than trying to               protect the child from the consequences of abuse. Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases If the child does not want to have contact with the abuser, the perpetrator and the professionals may assume that is due to parental alienation rather than as a result of the abuse. As will be seen in chapter 6, one consequence of not listening effectively to the child is that the reasons for the child not wanting to have contact with the abuser are not properly understood or taken into account. Listening more carefully to the child may result in a better understanding of whether or not allegations of alienation have any merit.”

 

  1.         The Women’s Aid research describes accusations of Parental Alienation being used against women who raise concerns about domestic abuse to the extent that allegations of abuse are “obscured by allegations of Parental Alienation against the non-abusive parent”.

 

  1.         On 15th February 2020 The World Health Organiziation temporarily removed this concept from its index and classification for being too contentious and without scientific evidence, stating:

    “Parental alienation has been removed from the ICD-11 classification as it is a judicial term and issue. Its inclusion for coding purposes in the ICD-11 will not contribute to valid or meaningful health statistics”.

 

  1.         Since September 2020, the withdrawal of any mention of Parental Alienation from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) is validated. The official version has been updated, and no longer makes any reference to this term.

 

  1.         The National Institute for Care and Health Excellence (NICE) who produce scientifically and medically accepted guidelines do not have any guidelines on Parental Alienation, they do hold guidelines on attachment but the specifically relate to children who are going into care or who are currently in care. With this in mind, The General Medical Council (GMC) do not recognise Parental Alienation as a standalone condition or disorder and if the GMC did recognise this theory, then NICE would have had to produce guidelines to support the condition.

 

  1.         Furthermore, the Presidents Memorandum dated 4th October 2021 in its final paragraph states:

    “The Family Court adopts a rigorous approach to the admission of expert evidence. As the references in this memorandum make plain, pseudo-science, which is not based on any established body of knowledge, will be inadmissible in the Family Court”.

 

  1.         This was followed by Sir Andrew McFarlane’s speech on 8th October 2021 to The Jersey International Family Law Conference 2021, entitled “Supporting Families In Conflict: There Is A Better Way”. The attention of the Lords is directed to page 13, where Sir Andrew McFarlane states:

    “One specific problem which is said to arise in cases of domestic abuse is the not infrequent counter assertion that the person making allegations of abuse is               themselves causing harm to the child by ‘parental alienation’. This is a complex and sensitive issue, and in the short time available in this address I seek to make one and one point only about it. Where the issue of parental alienation is raised and it is suggested to the court that an expert should be instructed, the court must be careful only to authorise such instruction where the individual expert has relevant expertise.”
     
  2.         The European Association For Psychotherapy on 24th February 2018 released a statement in relation to Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome:

    “The European Association for Psychotherapy (EAP) considers that the terms and concepts of ‘PAS’ and ‘PA’ are unsuitable for use in any psychotherapeutic practice.               The EAP recognizes that there is a high risk and potential of PAS/PA concepts to be used in a manner allowing for violence against children and their mothers to remain undetected, and/or contested, since it ignores essential aspects of child welfare and the gender-based nature of domestic violence. In cases of allegations of child abuse               in a divorce or custody situation, one of the basic assumptions of PAS/PA is that the allegations made by the child or parent are untrue. This concept alone can allow for - and/or - cause further victimization, and a pathologization of children and other victims of domestic violence. In addition, neither PAS nor PA are included in any               international classifications of mental disorders (DSM and ICD) and psychotherapists should therefore not use these terms as diagnostic categories. The               EAP believes that all European psychotherapists must also take, very seriously any               report of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases. Psychotherapists need to distinguish between a contentious divorce/separation and a divorce/separation in which there is domestic violence in order to be able to adjust psychotherapeutic interventions accordingly. This requires a case-by-case determination and a mutual understanding and cooperation between all psychosocial and legal professions, in accordance with universal standards relating to domestic and international legal documents concerning the protection of the best interests of the child and the protection of victims of domestic violence.”

 

  1.         Mr Justice Hayden’s judgment in the iconic case of F v M [2021] EWFC clearly defines the prominence to be given to coercive and controlling behaviour in Family Court proceedings.

 

  1.         The more recent combined appeal of  Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) also reflects this:

    “4. In November 2017, M [the mother] applied for and was granted a nonmolestation order against F [the father]. That order has been renewed and remains effective. The nature of the allegations included in support of the application can succinctly and accurately be summarised as involving complaints of ‘coercive and controlling behaviour’ on F’s part. In the Family Court, that expression is given no legal definition. In my judgement, it requires none. The term is unambiguous and needs no embellishment. Understanding the scope and ambit of the behaviour however, requires a recognition that ‘coercion’ will usually involve a pattern of acts encompassing, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats. ‘Controlling behaviour’ really involves a range of acts designed to render an individual subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy. Key to both behaviours is an appreciation of a ‘pattern’ or ‘a series of acts’, the impact of which must be assessed cumulatively and rarely in isolation. There has been very little reported case law in the Family Court considering coercive and controlling behaviour. I have taken the opportunity below, to highlight the insidious reach of this facet of domestic abuse. My strong impression, having heard the disturbing evidence in this case, is that it requires greater awareness and, I strongly suspect, more focused training for the relevant professionals.”

 

  1.         The Child Abuse Review published by Association of Child Protection Professionals and John Wiley & Sons Ltd (published online May 2020), focuses on the different types of fathering that coercively controlling fathers demonstrate and how children are facing coercive control and how this affects the children.

 

  1.         The review primarily focuses on how perpetrators can use coercive control against their children after their ex partner has separated from them. It focuses on the behaviours portrayed by the perpetrating father towards the children:

 

“Crucially, what this article provides is knowledge, hitherto largely missing, about how children and young people can experience coercive control post-separation. The article draws on two separate data sets, one from the UK and one from Finland, which together comprise qualitative interviews with 29 children who had coercive control perpetrating fathers/father-figures. The data sets were separately thematically analysed, then combined using a qualitative interpretative meta-synthesis. This produced three themes regarding children's experiences: (1) dangerous fathering that frightened children and made them feel unsafe; (2) ‘admirable’ fathering, where fathers/father-figures appeared as ‘caring’, ‘concerned’, ‘indulgent’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victims’; and (3) omnipresent fathering that continually constrained children's lives. Dangerous and ‘admirable’ fathering describe the behaviours of coercive control-perpetrating fathers/father-figures, while omnipresent fathering occurred in children as a fearful mental and emotional state. Perpetrators could also direct performances of ‘admirable’ fathering at professionals and communities in ways that obscured their coercive control.”

 

 

  1.         The article expands on “admirable fathering” further by describing how professionals are targeted by the coercively controlling father:

    “Performances of ‘admirable’ fathering were often targeted at professionals and wider communities (e.g. school staff, other parents), and could occur alongside fathers/father figures stalking, harassing and/or attacking ex-partners and children when out of the public eye. These perpetrators' apparent aim in performing ‘admirable’ fathering to community/professional audiences was to emphasise their role as ‘caring’, ‘concerned’, ‘indulgent’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victim’ fathers, making ex-partners seem like perpetrators or deficient mothers (see Monk, 2017)”.

 

“In both the UK and Finnish samples, some children reported how fathers/father figures performed ‘admirable fathering’ as part of their post-separation coercive control. In the children's narratives, ‘admirable’ fathering included their father/father figure playing the roles of a caring, indulgent, concerned and/or vulnerable-victim father. Performances of ‘admirable’ fathering were a powerful tool of control when mixed with dangerous fathering, as ‘admirable’ fathering increased father–child emotional bonds and could make children want to see/live with their fathers, while dangerous fathering simultaneously made them fearful of him (Enander, 2011; Monk, 2017; Thiara and Gill, 2012). This can be especially confusing for younger children who often try to be loyal to both parents (Nikupeteri and Laitinen, 2015)”.

“Coercive control perpetrators sometimes ‘display what seems to be love and care… as part of the abuse pattern’ (Enander, 2011, p. 29). With intimate partners, this can involve gift-giving and claims that their behaviour is motivated by protectiveness and deep love. The above descriptions by children demonstrate how perpetrators/fathers can extend these coercive control tactics to children and those outside the family (see also Monk, 2017). By appearing indulgent, concerned or emotionally dependent on their children, perpetrators/fathers disguised their ongoing use of coercive control as ‘admirable’ behaviour.”

 

“Our findings present a concerning picture. Children's accounts indicated that, post-separation, coercive control-perpetrating fathers/father figures can alternate between the dangerous father – intrusive, threatening and/or punishing – and the ‘admirable’ father – an apparently caring, indulgent, concerned and/or vulnerable-victim father unfairly separated from his children. Dangerous fathering was experienced by children as perpetrators'/fathers' physical, concrete acts of violent/threatening behaviour. The dangerous father scared children and harmed them emotionally/psychologically, physically, socially and educationally. Like dangerous fathering, ‘admirable’ fathering was experienced by children through fathers' concrete actions. The ‘admirable’ father made his children feel responsible for his welfare and/or increased their affection for him through money and gift-giving. Sometimes appearing loving and generous, he could trap children in father–child relationships that caused them distress. Finally, the omnipresent father occurred in children as a mental and emotional state; a state brought on by children's real experiences of fathers' dangerous and ‘admirable’ behaviours. The omnipresent father created continual fear in children, and this restricted children's liberty and freedom. Overall, children often had to adapt and constrain their daily activities, relationships and futures in response to their fathers' coercive control, and coercive control created harmful conditions of entrapment for children (Stark, 2007). We therefore suggest that children and young people should be professionally supported in their own right during the post-separation phase as coercive control victims/survivors.”

 

  1.         The article also expands on how perpetrating fathers use child contact to continue their abuse post separation and manipulate professionals to maintain their control:

    “Child contact provides coercive control-perpetrating fathers with opportunities to continue their abuse of children and ex-partners. Domestically violent fathers are routinely permitted contact with children (e.g. Bruno, 2015; Humphreys et al., 2019; Thiara and Gill, 2012). Professionals and systems (e.g. family courts) often aim to maintain relationships between children and domestically violent fathers, ‘overrid[ing] children's and mothers' right to protection’ and ‘compromis[ing] their safety’ (Harne, 2011, p. 65). Children who have post-separation contact with perpetrators/fathers can experience acute fear, distress and physical ill health; and are sometimes subjected to physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse by perpetrators/fathers during contact visits (Beeble et al., 2007; Harne, 2011; Humphreys et al., 2019; Mackay, 2017; Thiara and Gill, 2012). To maintain control and punish ex-partners post-separation, perpetrators/fathers often manipulate both children and professionals. Thiara and Gill (2012) highlight fathers manipulating children by buying them expensive presents and blaming mothers for all the problems in the family. Monk (2017) and Bancroft et al. (2012) show how some professionals inadvertently assist and collude with perpetrators/fathers owing to the perpetrators'/fathers' skill at ‘lying, threatening, charming, playing the victim or the hero’ (Monk, 2017, p. 183).”

 

  1.         The Child Abuse Review draws attention in its findings as to what stance may need to be taken by Family Courts and professionals in order to protect children from coercive control tactics:

    “Children's accounts also point to the need for a more critical stance towards fathers who have perpetrated coercive control, especially regarding performances of ‘admirable’ fathering. Family courts may need to protect children from contact or residency with domestic violence/coercive control-perpetrating fathers (Bruno, 2015; Mackay, 2017; Radford and Hester, 2015). To determine if children require protection from their fathers, professionals could examine whether the father is still perpetrating coercive control against the children and/or their mother through violence, harassment, threats, intimidation and/or manipulation. If he is, this may indicate that his performance of ‘admirable’ fathering is not genuine, and is part of his ongoing coercive control (Bancroft et al., 2012; Callaghan et al., 2018; Monk, 2017). This should be considered by professionals even when a coercive control perpetrator has never used physical violence, as there is some evidence to suggest that non-violent perpetrators are as harmful as violent ones (Crossman et al., 2016; Stark and Hester, 2019).”

 

“Finally, there is a move internationally towards criminalising controlling and coercive behaviour in family and intimate relationships (Stark and Hester, 2019). However, thus far, these efforts have focused on situations with adult perpetrators and adult victims. Our study suggests that there is a need for such laws to acknowledge that coercive control can also be perpetrated by a parent against a child under 16 years old, so that children's experiences as victims and survivors of coercive control gain greater recognition.”

“Their accounts highlight that, post-separation, perpetrators/fathers can continue to target coercive control at children as well as at their ex-partners. Fathers/father figures were sometimes overtly frightening, dangerous and threatening, and sometimes appeared to display more ‘positive’ and/or sympathy-eliciting behaviours. Like adult victims/survivors, many of the children and young people were living under conditions of constraint and entrapment (Stark, 2007), and coercive control could severely harm their emotional/psychological, social and physical wellbeing and their educational achievement. Some perpetrators/fathers appeared to deploy public performances of being a ‘caring’, ‘indulgent’, ‘concerned’ and/or ‘vulnerable-victim’ father, thereby obscuring their coercive control. Our findings suggest the necessity of: (a) identifying and supporting children and young people as direct victims/survivors of coercive control; (b) prioritising their rights to be free of this abuse; and (c) developing much more robust responses to coercive control-perpetrating fathers/father figures”.

“Our findings also imply the need for a more sophisticated understanding of the relationship that children may, or may not, have and want with fathers/father figures. Relationships with fathers/father figures are especially complex when children suffer from coercive control but at the same time miss their fathers/father figures, which may be the case especially with younger children (Nikupeteri and Laitinen, 2015; Peled, 2000). Children may become confused by fathers'/father figures' contradictory ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ behaviours (Enander, 2011) and find it hard to comprehend and verbalise their experiences (see Øverlien, 2013; Thiara and Gill, 2012). We suggest that professionals should be concerned when children of coercive control-perpetrating fathers express views that are pro-father or pro-contact with father, and should investigate whether children's views have been distorted by fathers. We are rightly used to interpreting an adult victim/survivor as having been manipulated when she says: ‘it's not his fault that he gets angry’, ‘it's not that bad’ or ‘I love him’. Yet we tend to see children and young people's perceptions as authentic and unproblematic when they make similar kinds of statements (Bancroft et al., 2012). To determine if children's perceptions have been manipulated by fathers (McLeod, 2018), professionals – for example, social workers, family court judges, teachers or the police – need to be knowledgeable about the complexity of children and young people's experiences of coercive control. This is especially important in light of adults' responsibilities to help children and young people to realise their rights for secure living environments and abuse-free lives (UNICEF, n.d.).”
 

  1.         The harm that children face by coercively controlling fathers is extensive and the below sections of the report are something that I feel the Lords should consider when deciding on the implementation of a new Act.

    “- Children and young people can be direct victims/survivors of coercive control and they can experience it in much the same ways as adults do – feeling confused and afraid, living constrained lives, and being entrapped and harmed by the perpetrator.

- Coercive control can harm children and young people emotionally/psychologically, physically, socially and educationally.

- Robust measures are required to deal with coercive control perpetrating fathers/ father-figures, in order to prevent them from using father–child relationships to continue imposing coercive control on children and ex-partners”.

 

  1.         “Drawing on the accounts of children and young people themselves, it shows how children can continue to be harmed by their father's/father figure's use of coercive control after their mother's separation from him. It explores how, in the post-separation phase, fathers/father figures can use the same tactics of coercive control against their children that they use against their ex-partners, causing children the same kinds of psychological and emotional harm and constraining their lives.”

    “Domestically violent fathers/father figures are known to impact harmfully on children's wellbeing, mental health and development. They are likely to father in ways that are authoritarian, rigid, neglectful, uninvolved and/or overly permissive, and to pose a high risk of perpetrating physical and emotional abuse against their children (Bancroft et al., 2012; Harne, 2011; Heward-Belle, 2016; Humphreys et al., 2019; Mackay, 2017; Thiara and Gill, 2012). The same factors that contribute to the perpetrators' abuse of their partners – their high sense of entitlement and self-centredness – can also influence their harmful fathering practices (Bancroft et al., 2012; Humphreys et al., 2019). Like their mothers (Enander, 2011), children often feel both love and hate towards perpetrators/fathers, viewing them in confused, disjointed and/or contradictory ways (Peled, 2000; Staf and Almqvist, 2015; Thiara and Gill, 2012)”

    “These examples show how dangerous fathering could make children's lives frightening, constrained and unpredictable. Perpetrators'/fathers' post-separation coercive control could make children feel that they, their mothers and their pets were in danger. Many children and young people were denied everyday experiences such as relaxing at home or attending the same school each year. In some cases, children's lives were disrupted on multiple occasions as they and their mothers tried to escape coercive control. Because of their fathers'/father figures' actions, the potential for loss and death was ever-present in children's narratives. Thus, children and young people were experiencing central aspects of coercive control – living under threat, feeling fearful and living constrained lives (Stark, 2007)”

 

  1.         Coercive or controlling behaviour in a family or intimate relationship was made a criminal offence in 2015 under Section 76 of The Serious Crime Act. Mothers position is that Molly has a right to be protected from such behaviour. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and Practice Direction 12J also state that coercive and controlling behaviour is Domestic Abuse.

 

  1.         Children and families should be protected and safeguard from all abuse and unhealthy behavioural patterns. I am asking the The Lords to thoroughly consider this prior to the making of any new Act.

 

  1.         Once the Courts have made interim or final decisions it is the onus of the Local Authority to promote the standards as described in the 2014 Act, however this rarely happens and children are put at further risk as well as separated from their siblings.

 

  1.         As a parent who as faced these kinds of proceedings and allegations myself, including findings against me of “Alienation” I can safely state that the Acts themselves are not an issue and they are fit for purpose, it is however the Local Authorities and Courts who do not follow or implement the Acts and surrounding laws. This in turn destroys a child's right to a family life, infringes the Human Rights of both the child and the parent, is detrimental to the child's welfare and puts the child at significant harm.

 

  1.         If the laws that are set for purpose were followed with the diligence they were due there would be a lesser rate of adoption, a lesser rate of children placed into foster care, a future generation of children with a lesser risk of harm and stronger sibling and family relationships.

 

  1.         Due to the trauma both my children and I have suffered throughout process I do not wish to divulge further in this submission, I do however welcome the opportunity to speak about my experience to the Lords or to parliament in order to aid the inquiry and impact on change for the future. No child or protective parent should have to face what we have.

 

April 2022

11