header-logo header-logo

Parental alienation as a label

21 June 2024 / Jane Chanot
Issue: 8076 / Categories: Features , Family , Child law , Divorce
printer mail-detail
177930
Jane Chanot warns of the dangers of unexplored assumptions in contact cases
  • Considers why parental alienation has become a label that is too quickly applied or used as a default position.
  • Addresses the possibility that the parental alienation label will mask possible welfare issues.
  • Discusses the importance of applying for psychological assessments to assess parental alienation claims and avoid unfair labelling.

While we are all familiar with the term ‘parental alienation’, there’s a question mark as to whether it is properly understood or has just become a label that the legal community is erroneously applying—or is sometimes too quick to apply.

Background

The term parental alienation originated in the US and steadily replaced the term commonly used in the UK, ‘implacable hostility’, in itself a severe description of a possible situation between parents where contact is proving almost impossible to negotiate. Parental alienation does not have a clinical basis any more than another frequently bandied label in the family courts, ‘narcissistic behaviour’, which has become the ‘in’ phrase for coercive control.

While

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll