Parental alienation - Response to Hannah Summers’ article in the Law Society Gazette dated 24 October 2025 - Part 2.

Richard Gregorian, Principal of Gregorian Emerson Family Law Solicitors, a firm with a unique legal-psychological approach to family law, responds to the Law Society Gazette article of Hannah Summers in the 24 October 2025 edition [reference is below]

In Part 1, I looked at general principles around parental alienation and its, more likely, “alter ego”, parental conflict.  From the legal perspective, parental alienation involves blaming one parent, based on the factual matrix of their superficial behaviour.  An expert understanding of parental conflict analyses the responsibility of each parent in contributing to that conflict where, invariably, neither parent has the therapeutic or educative knowledge to prevent themselves from falling into conflict, or improving their situation.  From the legal perspective, parental alienation condemns the person.  An expertise in parental conflict, seeks to understand the causes of conflict and the impact of it on both parents so that improvements can be made.  This skill set is largely unknown to the family justice system, which prefers to approach family breakdown and the reasons for it (ultimately, parental conflict) by analysing the facts and seeking to prove their veracity (not completely but as to the balance of probabilities!) in a blaming, undermining and stressful environment for both parents and where it does not possess the necessary skill sets to help them or any children involved. 

This response is not, in any way, intended to attack or undermine Ms Summers’ article, whose writing is very clear and concise and, where her article, invariably, only contains a summary of the underlying judgements which, themselves, contain only a fraction of the information in the underlying cases. 

As in part 1, I will, however, respond to her article as the points arise, rather than reading all of it before responding, which increases the risk of forming opinions and associated confirmation bias:

• The President of the Family Division expresses surprise at the increasing number of parental alienation cases. He should be no more surprised than with the failure of mediation, the Child Arrangements Program and the inevitable failure of the “Pathfinder Pilot”. Until he realises that the family justice system is not possessed of the correct skill set to understand family breakdown and parental conflict, it is simply a question of moving the deck chairs around a sinking Titanic.  I am no mechanic, so whatever I do to fix my car, it will not work.  I suspect that the increasing number of cases is simply because the term “parental alienation” is used for certain, more extreme, cases of “parental conflict”, since the latter is a subset of the former.  He will find the same increase in the number of cases involving allegations of “narcissism”, for the same reason: that it provides a convenient label for a parent’s misunderstanding of the reasons and their responsibility for parental conflict.

• Accordingly, contrary to what the President says, there is nothing controversial about the concept of parental alienation, unless one believes that parental conflict is not a feature of every case of child litigation. As I said in part 1 of my article, every child dispute involves parental alienation, because it involves parental conflict and the undermining of parental time and/or parental responsibility by one or both parents in the context of negative belief systems about each other. It is also not controversial to understand that, in the absence of effective parental communication (because of parental conflict), the subject children will, inevitably, become involved in the parents’ dysfunctional communication and become aware of the negative beliefs they have about each other.

• Incidentally, that does not mean that the parent intends to alienate the child. The difference between listening and supporting the child and the resultant validation of the child’s views (impacted by being caught in the parental conflict) and being accused of parental alienation, is a very fine one. Essentially, it comes down to knowing when to stop listening and talking to the child and begin talking to the other parent about the problem.  Easier said than done, when nobody in the family justice system has helped the parents to improve their communication.  Indeed, quite the opposite.  If the parents are not completely dismissive and hateful towards one another before they begin expensive and protracted litigation, they will be, after.

• In the circumstances, it is rather hilarious (I mean, shameful) for the Family Justice Council to call parental alienation syndrome a harmful pseudoscience and having no evidential basis. Then again, if you refer to the separate skill set of solution focused communication and conflict resolution in relation to any case, as one way of addressing parental conflict, it is like speaking Mandarin. The skill set is not possessed by the judges, Cafcass or its court-appointed experts so the closest they get is to identify parental conflict as being a problem, with a plague on both the parents’ houses.  It seems the Family Justice Council have got caught up on the reference to syndrome, thereby putting the pseudoscience of psychology against the unimpeachable, impervious way of really understanding human behaviour and parental conflict by looking at superficial behaviours of the parents in conflict, which is what the legal system does (I am, of course, being sarcastic).  It seems that the family justice system needs to be convinced that there are 2 sides to every argument or that any fact can speak to, at least, 2 very different realities.  Accordingly, believing that parental alienation can be identified by looking at specific behaviours, established through fact findings, is the worst approach to take.  But then again, in a system full of blame, rather than understanding, that coat fits.

• Whilst the Cafcass definition of parental alienation is more sophisticated, in referring to the how, rather than the why of parental alienation, it continues the difficulties that the courts have around all cases of parental conflict (which, as I say, parental alienation is just one, more extreme, example). At least the Cafcass definition implies there is some deeper level of analysis required.  In court, I find myself going back a step further by saying in response to judicial criticism of obvious parental conflict, “yes we know “the what” (parental conflict), but not “the how” (how to help these parents remove themselves from parental conflict, otherwise than by some type of generic, court directed online parenting programme or parenting app)”.  Of more concern is that the Cafcass definition refers to an intention to undermine or manipulate, as if these results cannot occur subconsciously and inadvertently as a result of the negative emotions around conflict e.g. fear, threat and trauma.

• The FJC view that allegations of parental alienation have been used as a form of post separation control and abuse and a litigation tactic is curious. If correctly quoted, does that mean that the ”non-alienating” parent is viewed as raising the concept of parental alienation, in bad faith, simply to smear the other “innocent” parent. It seems it does because of the FJC’s obsession with (blaming father’s for) domestic abuse.  In other words, even though every single child dispute involves parental alienation, the other parent (let’s call him the father, as he frequently is) is tantamount to a coercive controller and continuing his abuse through the courts, by alleging that the mother is alienating him.  Inevitably, she will be (this concept is not gender specific) through the impact of her litigation position, although it seems the FJC make this statement, believing that parental alienation is something which can only happen with intent.  That is completely wrong.  However, this domestic abuse narrative seems to be the answer to every recent change in Family Law including the reason for the repeal of the shared parenting presumption, the Pathway Pilot, replacing the Child Arrangements Programme, the availability of legal aid, and the protection of the domestic violence abuse victims from cross-examination by their “perpetrator”.  In following this approach, which will end in failure for both the family justice system and the parents, there is a failure to understand that:
• Many cases of non-physical domestic abuse are, in fact, issues of parental conflict which are not being understood by one or both parents who, consequently, believes they are being abused. It should come as no surprise to the FJC, that, frequently, both parents will feel abused by the other. Indeed, unless they are students of conflict resolution, including the impact of parental conflict on the individuals and cognitive dissonance, it is almost inevitable that each parent believes the other is the source of their upset, is intentionally targeting them and, therefore, is abusing them and will react accordingly. 
• Seeking to perpetrate abuse through the legal system, is not a very bright idea where the “abuser” is not only inviting transparency into a pattern of behaviour which is, typically, covert but also gives over their case to individuals, over whom they have no control.
• The impact of reframing a parent’s concern that the other parent is alienating them as some type of control or abuse tactic, is, in fact, going to create a self fulfilling prophecy - one that has been operating for decades in any event. In other words, place one parent (usually the father) in an inferior position to the other, form the type of stereotype the FJC has done around that person as being controlling, and when they react, jump up and say ”I told you so, look how controlling he is”, rather than seek to understand how completely disempowered that person has been made by the family justice system and, therefore, why they act in a “controlling” way.

• In focusing upon the particular psychologist, Melanie Gill, as being unregulated (which I understand she disputes, in any event), shows a very acute lack of insight by the family justice system, which is not only unregulated in the necessary skill set but does not possess it at all i.e. the ability to understand family breakdown, the causes and results of it and how they can be improved. It certainly is not by the facts and the law and proving that one party is right and the other wrong, from their superficial behaviour.

• I have not seen the report of Ms Gill and the reasoning why she found the mother to be a parental alienator but, then again, I have not seen the letter of instruction which would have failed to mention the need to consider the parental relationship, accusations and litigation from the perspective of expertise in conflict resolution. I understand that she was requested to undertake a report on the family i.e. one which, therefore, could have considered the dynamic between the parents, but suspect that when she was appointed, she was appointed as a clinician to look at the parents’ respective parenting capacity, rather than their share of responsibility for the conflict between them. It may have even been that the lawyers appointed the wrong professional, which happens all the time.

• It follows that even if treatment was offered for parental alienation, it was misguided because the problem could be one of joint parental conflict. It seems that the father’s contribution to the inevitable feelings of trauma, threat, abuse, felt by the mother simply disappeared. And yet one can almost guarantee that this mother would have made allegations in the opposite direction which, not being listened to or understood, would have led to her shouting louder for her voice to be heard and becoming more rigid in her belief systems about the father.  These are fertile grounds for her to be seen as the parental alienator.  It may be that the father was not an abuser but he certainly would have been impacted in his interactions with the mother by parental conflict and to a greater or lesser extent been responsible (not to blame) for the mother feeling so threatened. 

• Indeed, it may have been that the mother was acting in a narcissistic way and was alienating. It is not particularly fruitful to test narcissism within parental conflict where there are, naturally, high levels of anxiety, black-and-white/rigid thinking, lack of empathy, lack of insight and accountability (which are traits of both narcissism and conflict). However, I would have instructed an expert to analyse the conflict dynamic between the parents, which could have led to the mother being seen as acting not as an intentional parental alienator but rather as a very scared and traumatised parent impacted by the conflict with the father of which she had no understanding. 

• The judicial removal of the children from the mother prior to any therapeutic intervention is clearly a mistake. You cannot fail the student before they have taken the exam, less still being given the coursework to study. Whether she or both parents required therapeutic intervention, whether for parental alienation or, more likely, parental conflict, consideration must be given to the fact that parents are going to act in a rigid and resistant way where change is required when they are in high conflict, traumatising litigation.  The mother should have had a chance to engage in that therapy, which could possibly have thrown up the relevance of the parental conflict dynamic with the father on her behaviour, in a more supportive setting than under cross-examination.  The fact that she was having supervised contact for 5 years, without any understanding of these parental conflict issues and the consequent impact on the children is shameful.  During those 5 years, the mother would have felt the same about the father and the father about the mother (because parental conflict was not being addressed) and the children would have been suffering from this underlying welfare concern.  Hardly a great success story for the family justice system is it?  In fact, the impact of the parental conflict on these children was exacerbated by the loss of their mother at a time when they were still experiencing the loss of their parents being together.  However, in a system where contact orders are the only instrument available to the courts, creating further loss on top of existing loss is extremely common.

Turning to Ms Summers’ summary of the decision of Mrs Justice Judd in O v C, which overturned the 5 years of the mother’s supervised contact:

• It is inevitable that with this family’s difficulties still being analysed through the prism of the family justice system, the solution would remain one based in blame, opinion, confirmation bias and legal precedent, none of which have anything to do with supporting this family or the children in improving the ongoing parental conflict. It would be simply a different opinion, supported with different facts, to support confirmation bias.

• Further, one could almost guess that, after 5 years of punishment of the mother, with no resolution in sight because the wrong support was being given to her and with the children being 5 years older and more resilient and because supervised contact is always seen as a short-term solution, that unsupervised contact would be the result. After all, it is only a 50-50 outcome and as the courts so insightfully state “things have to move on”.

• The problem with case precedent and FJC guidance is that it has no relevance at all to this particular family. However, even that stark truism is less significant than the fact that any system that seeks to understand human behaviour, including parental alienation or parental conflict, by looking at the superficial facts and parental behaviours, from the outside, is misconceived in the extreme.

• I will look at the FJC guidance in the next Part of this article but I strongly suspect it will simply be breaking down the steps in how to find blame against one parent rather than to understand the conflict dynamic between both. If that FJC guidance believes that parental alienation can only be found where there is no other possible reason for a child to reject a parent, then it had better have a very good and detailed explanation of the impact on children of parental conflict and how a child may “reject” one parent, absent alienating behaviour by one parent or the domestic abuse by the other. In the FJC thinking, there seems to be a belief that the child is able to sit in, objective, judgement of both parents as a barometer of the parental conflict and as an unknowing “expert witness” in terms of which parent is to blame for causing him/her to reject one parent.  With that logic, I would like to see how the FJC/case authorities, explain the position where there is so much conflict and abuse between the parents that the child wants the parents to get back together again, in order to bring to an end to the distress that conflict has on them. 

• Even if one chooses to see extreme joint parental conflict as parental alienation and, so, the fault of one parent, it is not a one-way street. Parental alienation is caused by the alienating behaviour by one parent and the reaction to that behaviour in the other parent-usually anger and upset which is transferred onto the child who does not, therefore, wish to be with that parent. So, again, looking only at one parent, particularly from the perspective of their superficial behaviour, without looking at the underlying conflict resolution dynamic between both of them and the impact it has, is completely misconceived. 

• The fact that OvC is a legal construct can be seen from the fact that, paradoxically, in order to continue imposing supervised contact on the mother, the father is forced to argue she is not a parental alienator. He has to do so because Miss Gill (the court-appointed mental health professional) and the first instance Judge held that she was, in order to impose that supervised contact on her. Tomorrow, probably in the same court, another father will be requesting supervised contact because the mother is a parental alienator.  Confirmation bias at its best.

• What seems to have happened with the first instance Judge, acting upon the report of Ms Gill, is to fall foul of a very common problem in the family justice system, due to its lack of understanding of mental health. I have come across many cases where there is a clear mental health problem but rather than go down the court-appointed mental health expert route, the judges look at the “symptoms” of the mental health problem through fact-finding cases (because they “know” facts better than they know mental health). That is rather like taking an alcoholic and proving him to be so, not by the supportive taking of a case history, diagnosis and care plan, but rather looking at whether he drink drives, has lost his job, has problems with his relationships and any other number of symptoms of mental health which can be factually  Accordingly, the fact that the District Judge preferred to rely upon the report of Ms Gill is not her fault.  It is rather the family justice system’s fault for believing that the mother must have a mental health problem because it does not understand both parents may have a conflict resolution problem.

• I have not read Ms Gill’s psychological report and nor am I an expert in attachment science. I am sure it has every relevance to the “vertical” relationship between mother and child. It may have even been a dysfunctional “vertical” relationship e.g. one based on insecure attachment.  However, I do find it rather rich for OvC to state that Ms Gills assessment of the parents is through that prism, making it very difficult to retain any of what she says as a base for future decision-making, when the actual decision-making in OvC failed to include any reference to the need for analysis of the “horizontal” parental conflict between the parents or what support they should receive.  Of more relevance, would be the impact on that maternal relationship of the parental conflict, including the threat, trauma, disempowerment, fear, anxiety and the like, as exacerbated by the family justice system.  Parents in conflict, fearing they will lose their child in a system that does not understand them or their circumstances, are very likely to show their narcissistic and insecure attachment side.

• The future decision-making that OvC implemented was that Cafcass would determine what kind of relationship the children can have their mother. So, a repeat of the process of looking at one parent and their reactions without understanding the entire parental conflict and the impact on both parents which has an impact on the other. Further, are you really telling me that the decision of the circuit judge in granting unsupervised contact was completely uninfluenced by the decision of the more senior judge in OvC? The second case history I gave in part 1 of the article, which resulted in the mother having supervised contact, for many years, prior to my representation, was essentially the result of each parent traumatising the other.  The more one parent wanted to feel safe, the more they acted in a certain way which created anxiety, upset and unpredictability in the other parent, making them feel more unsafe and so on and so forth.  I suspect that is not too far off the present case.    

• The outcome appears to be that the mother was given unsupervised contact by another judge. Ms Gill and the previous district judge were casualties in that change of opinion - they had to be seen to be “wrong”. The trouble is that giving the mother unsupervised contact does nothing to address her responsibility and feelings around the parental conflict, nor those of the father and, therefore, the children continue to be impacted by the dysfunctional coparenting relationship (unless I’m very much mistaken and they now exist in complete separated coparenting harmony).  Now, who or rather what, is wrong!

The Law Society Gazette article can be found at

https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=445c50f3-d319-492e-85c4-cdfde5a2be6b&pnum=8&utm_source=gazette_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gazette+weekly+edition+24+Oct+2025_10%2f24%2f2025

O v C [2025] EWFC 334, which referred to an earlier judgement in those proceedings Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345.