On 20 February 2026, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane handed down one of the most important judgements in family law for some time.
The case of Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) has attracted significant attention in the family law world. The case is important because it looks closely at how the court deal with allegations that one parent has turned a child against the other – sometimes described as “parental alienation”.
For parents involved in disputes about children, the judgment is a reminder of how seriously the court takes these cases, but also how carefully the evidence must be examined before major decisions are made.
What happened in the case
The case concerned two children whose parents had separated several years earlier. Court proceedings began in 2019 when the children were aged 12 and 9.
Both parents made serious allegations about the other, including claims of domestic abuse. The court originally intended to hold a fact-finding hearing to decide which allegations were true.
However, before that happened, the court decided an assessment should be carried out to consider the allegations of parental alienation.
The expert report concluded that the mother had influenced the children against their father and that this behaviour amounted to emotional abuse.
Based largely on that expert opinion, the court decided not to proceed with the planned fact-finding hearing. Instead, the judge accepted the expert’s conclusions and made very significant orders. The children were moved to live with their father, and the mother’s contact with them was effectively stopped unless she accepted the findings and undertook therapy.
The result was that the mother had no relationship with the children for several years.
Years later, the situation changed. The mother applied to the court asking for the earlier findings to be reconsidered. By this point, one of the children had reached adulthood and the younger child had left the father’s home and gone to live with the mother.
The case then came before Sir Andrew McFarlane who reviewed what had happened in the earlier proceedings.
Why the court decided the case had gone wrong
After examining the earlier process, the court concluded that the original decision-making had been fundamentally flawed.
One of the key concerns was that the court had relied heavily on the expert’s conclusions without first deciding the factual disputes between the parents. Serious allegations of domestic abuse had never actually been tested in a fact-finding hearing.
The President also questioned the role of the expert who had been instructed. The expert was not a registered or chartered psychologist but had been allowed to provide opinions that were treated as authoritative. The judgment emphasised that courts must be very careful about who they allow to give expert psychological evidence.
Another issue was the way the concept of “parental alienation” had been used. The court stressed that the focus should always be on identifying specific behaviours and understanding the reasons behind a child’s views. A child rejecting a parent does not automatically mean that the other parent has manipulated them.
Because of these concerns, the earlier findings against the mother were set aside. An order was made for the younger child to live with the mother – perhaps an order that should have been made some 6 years earlier.
What this decision means for parents
Although every family case is different, the judgment highlights some important points about how courts approach disputes involving children.
First, the court’s role is to determine the facts. When serious allegations are made, especially allegations of domestic abuse, those issues should normally be properly investigated before expert opinions are relied upon.
Second, expert evidence must be carefully scrutinised. Experts can assist the court, but they do not make the decisions. Judges must ultimately decide what happened and what arrangements are best for the children.
Third, the case shows that decisions in family proceedings can sometimes be revisited if there has been a serious procedural problem or if important evidence was not properly considered.
A reminder of the court’s focus
The central aim of the family court is always the welfare of the child. Cases involving allegations of alienating behaviour can be extremely complex because they often involve competing narratives, strong emotions and difficult family dynamics.
This judgment is therefore less about rejecting the idea that a child can be influenced against a parent, and more about ensuring that courts reach decisions through a careful and fair process.
For parents going through disputes about their children, the message is clear: the court will look closely at the evidence, and major decisions about a child’s future must be based on a thorough and balanced examination of the facts.
At E J Coombs, we have assisted parents with concerns of alienating behaviours. If you are in need of expert advice, book an appointment today using the links below.
