• Families Need Fathers | Trustees

Parental Alienation and Intractable Contact Dispute Case Law

Parental Alienation and Intractable Contact Dispute Case Law

Judgments which may prove useful to parents who believe their children to be being alienated from them. These include judgments which specifically relate to parental alienation, and those which involve wishes and feelings and intractable disputes.

Where in the public domain, full versions of the judgment can be read onscreen or downloaded in a PDF format for printing via link buttons.

A video presentation of developments in law in Parental Alienation is also available below: No Link Provided

“The possibility of short-term upset must be balanced against the long-term benefits which are likely to accrue if contact is established.”

“namely that the court should consider whether the fundamental need of every child to have an enduring relationship with both parents is outweighed by the depth of harm to the particular child that might thereby be caused by the contact order.”

Appeal allowed “I have concluded that the judge failed to make a finding or sufficiently reasoned finding on alienation by the mother or to make it clear that he was not making such a finding”. There was a serious breakdown in the child/father relationship and the judge failed in his quasi-inquisitorial duty to assess the origins of the breakdown.

“It is essential that the passage of time should not become conclusive in depriving the children of a relationship with their father.”

At paragraph 17 “It is a case in which the passage of the years has almost become conclusive and should not be allowed to become conclusive without a major judicial effort to rescue for these children a relationship with their father before it is too late.”

The court found that a shared residence order ´removes any impression that one parent is good and responsible and the other is not, and has the benefit of being more realistic in those cases where the child is to spend considerable amounts of time with those parents´.

Lord Justice Wall further confirmed that shared residence orders may be made even when one parent is hostile to the idea (and otherwise the ´no-order principle´ would apply).

´If these parents were capable of working in harmony, and there were no difficulties about the exercise of shared parental responsibility, I would have …. made no order as to residence.´

[32] No parent is perfect but ´good-enough parents´ should have a relationship with their children for their own benefit and even more in the best interests of the children. It is, therefore, most important that the attempt to promote contact between a child and the non-resident parent should not be abandoned until it is clear that the child will not benefit from continuing the attempt.

The application by the father´s counsel for a psychological assessment is the possible key to a reconsideration of future contact…

Mrs Justice Bracewell discussed at paragraph 10 the (then) lack of powers available to the court to address intractable contact disputes (prior to the Children and Adoption Act 2006 introducing new ´contact activity directions´ and ´enforcement powers´). She points out that indirect contact is the worst of options in addressing intractable cases (and in this case, there being parental alienation and substantial false allegations as a factor).

The judge transferred residence to the father.

“Justice to the children and the deprived parent require the Court to leave no stone unturned that might resolve the situation and prevent long term harm to the children.” “Includes the Court directing a psychiatric or psychological assessment from an expert experienced in dealing with families with children with problems of this kind.” “…the Court should not stand by and take no positive action.”

The Court should “pursue all possible avenues to the resumption of direct contact” established in particular in G (A Child) [2006] EWCA Civ 348. “Whatever the difficulties, however scant the prospects of success, the courts must not relent in pursuit of the restoration of what had been a natural relationship between father and daughter, absent compelling evidence that the welfare of the child requires respite.”

The report was to the effect that the mother suffered a personality disorder which rendered her incapable of controlling her emotions when confronted, directly or indirectly, by the father on occasions of contact; that, albeit that he, Dr Anderson, understood that S had not yet been harmed by the level of conflict generated by the mother, such would not remain the case; and that the continued parental alienation likely to be visited by the mother upon him and the attendant emotional pressure upon him would lead to significant psychological difficulties for him.

The mother persistently interfered with contact arrangements including breaches of an interim order, and it was the opinion of the independent social worker that the child must live with the father.

“21. Mr Wall complains that the recorder failed to pay sufficient regard to the likelihood of continued difficulty in relation to handovers even following a change of residence. I have pointed out that the recorder accepted the likelihood of that continued feature but drew the distinction, in my view valid, that at least in the father’s household S would not be exposed to a continual atmosphere of hostility towards the non-residential parent…

29. This case affords another vivid illustration of the inability of a court, in any jurisdiction, to protect children from all the consequences of the way their parents choose to behave. Where criticism of parenting is exclusively referable to issues of contact a transfer of residence will, of course, always remain the exceptional response, but there must be times when the court is able and seen to be willing to carry through a transfer of residence when all else has failed.

30. This case is distinguished by the degree of judicial continuity which was available to the parties. It is apparent by looking at the learned recorder’s involvement in this case, that he has repeatedly made findings as to the frustration of contact: he issued the clearest of warnings; he was in receipt of compelling professional evidence suggesting that the mother lacked insight or the capacity to change and, of course, he had the impact of that video. In my judgment, its importance matters rather less as to what one precisely makes of it but as providing a vivid illustration of the mother’s lack of insight, or ability to change, when it is appreciated it is in the context of the judge having given the clearest possible warning that he would consider a change of residence were the difficulties not to abate.

31. In my judgment, the learned judge was fully entitled to follow what, admittedly, was a dramatic course; it was one that will bring real if transitory cost to the child but one in which, in my judgment, he was fully entitled to carry through. There was simply no real alternative and, had the judge not made the order that he had made, in effect, the court would be giving up on this family and allowing the mother to behave in whatever way she chose.”

“Where an intractable dispute has resulted in the children refusing to see their father, the court should not terminate direct contact until every avenue has been explored, including counselling or therapy for the parents.” See paragraphs 37 & 38.

The judge at trial had not heard evidence about the potential for counselling to assist in resolving the parent’s dispute.

“a crucial measure of a resident parents ´good enough´ parenting is whether they promote frequent and continuous contact with the non resident parent.” – Dr Cameron

“The days are long gone when mothers can assume that their role as carers of children protects them from being sentenced to immediate terms of imprisonment for clear, repeated and deliberate breaches of contact orders.” – Ward LJ.

At the end of proceedings, it was left to the children to decide whether or not to take up contact.

Thorpe says:

“it is a condition of the contact that the children have to decide for each contact whether to take it up or not.”
That is a highly unusual provision and, whilst it seems on the face of it to conform with the children´s wishes and feelings, in reality it burdens them with a responsibility that they should not be asked to bear at their respective ages of 12 and 13.

The father´s appeal was allowed.

A further valid point (and an exercise in common sense) is made in this judgment:

“7. Miss Gibbons has said, well, what about his wishes and feelings? My response to that is that they are trumped by his welfare. Looking on in the attendance note he says to the guardian:
“I want to leave my school. It´s much more strict than it used to be. Me and my friends get picked on for things that never used to matter.”

Well, if wishes and feelings rule he would be walking away from school. But fortunately they do not and children of his age have to have their lives regulated by adult judgment.”

Of use was Thorpe mentioning 4 experts in the field of parental alienation, being Dr Kirk Weir, Dr Hamish Cameron, Dr Judith Trowel, and Dr Danya Glaser.

A complex case where residence was transferred to the paternal grandparents. The father had been found guilty of sexually abusing his step-daughter. The father maintained his innocence. The mother of the father´s two other children became obsessively opposed to contact between the two sons and the paternal family.

So what the judge had to balance was on the one hand the enormous harm, real genuine psychological harm which these children would suffer if they continued to grow up in a false belief system, against the love which their mother undoubtedly bore them and the fact that they had lived with her for all their lives. The judge went about that task in my view conscientiously. He made it absolutely clear that the welfare of the children was his first and paramount consideration. Everything else had to pale into insignificance…

The idea that these children should regard their grandparents as effectively ogres who are likely to facilitate and connive them being abused by their father is fanciful and absurd and I do not give it credence for one moment; nor, plainly, did the judge because the judge trusted the grandparents. And so, as I say, when the judge came to strike the balance between, on the one hand, an abusive false belief system inculcated by the mother, and the possibility that against that, on the other side, free from her false belief systems, the children might be able to regain at least a fraction of their childhood and be normal children again enjoying a normal relationship with grandparents, the judge’s balance in my view comes down only one way and certainly I cannot say on any view that he was plainly wrong. I do not underestimate the short term distress which the children may feel but I ask their parents to think very carefully about why they are feeling that distress, and if their parents are honest people they will recognise, and their mother in particular will recognise, that they are feeling it because she feels it and she has inflicted on these children a belief system which, in the words of the consultant psychiatrist, might well involve them becoming emotional cripples.

“It would be … inappropriate ..to proceed on the basis that expressed wishes and feelings should necessarily be taken at face value. They need to be assessed in the light of [S´s] age and understanding. The impact of alienation upon the reliability of those wishes and feelings and the signs (albeit modest) that they may not in fact reflect his true feelings, are matters to be taken into account when assessing the weight to be attached to them”.

Appeal against the orders made in TE v SH and S [2010] EWHC 192 (see above).

Thorpe rejected the Guardian´s and mother´s submissions that exercising the transfer of residence via court tipstaff (officers of the court) infringed the child´s Article 5 rights (“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.”). Thorpe though accepted that a ´stepping stone´ of the child being temporarily placed in foster care was in the child´s best interests.

The passage of time and failure to introduce the required support and expertise at an early stage, contributed, in part, to the failure of the residence reversal in TE v SH and S [2010] EWHC 192 (above). In more recent judgments, we have seen the court remove children from the alienating parent and temporarily place them in care as both a protective measure, and to assist in unravelling entrenched alienation (with the support of concurrent therapeutic intervention). The involvement and support of the local authority has been necessary to enable this solution.

The resident parent’s obligation (in this case the father) was to “allow” and make the child “available” for contact. This was the father’s obligation under the contact order “no more and no less”. There exists a defence of impossibility. Within the judgment, it was also noted that committal to prison remains an essential power of the court. The judgment includes opinion as to when committal can be appropriate for breach of contact and contempt of court.

The text of the judgment also highlights the possible use of suspended residence orders as a tool to encourage contact (paragraph 107):

“this court has endorsed the propriety in an appropriate case of making a suspended residence order, that is, an order providing for a future transfer of residence upon the happening (or non-happening) of a defined event: see Re A (Suspended Residence Order) [2009] EWHC 1576 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1679 (appeal dismissed Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 1551), and Re D (Children) xxx (appeal dismissed Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 496).”

A recent judgment giving guidance for case management in parental alienation cases, and in particular noting that in such intractable cases it is important to to hear evidence on welfare matters at an early stage (rather than fact-finding) and that judicial continuity is important, but that the High Court is not best placed to provide that.

TCM Comment: It is worth noting the conflicting opinions of the Guardian and the expert in the case (the respected Mark Berelowitz), and that contact may have ceased had no expert been involved in this case (e.g. the judge was informed by the opinion of the guardian alone). It is worth remembering that a social worker/CAFCASS Officer is not an expert in child psychology, and there may be times when an expert opinion would be more appropriate, depending on the matters being considered (e.g. the psychological impact/harm on a child of cessation of contact and the risks and potential rewards of contact being resumed).

The children were being alienated against the father and paternal family. The mother had broken orders, and contact resumed under warning of committal to prison. The guardian only recommended infrequent contact. The judge found the guardian´s reasoning to be fundamentally flawed in that she confused the children´s wishes and feelings with their welfare needs and had taken them at face value. She had failed to adequately consider the impact of estrangement:

The judge gave one last chance to the mother, by way of a conditional residence order with residence transferring to the father should the mother interfere with contact between the children and him. The children´s passports were to be retained by court tipstaff and certain other restrictions were placed on matters related to parental responsibility.

HHJ Marshall had ordered no direct contact. McFarlane, while acknowledging the trial judge had not erred in their interpretation of law, allowed the appeal as evidence supported that:

The father was committed to the children;

He had addressed concerns related to his anger management;

That there had in the past been positive contact.

An important point to note is the father having accepted and addressed previous concerns, opening the door to contact being re-established, and in contrast to the mother who had refused to engage in therapy.

In the absence of mother´s engaging in therapy which the trial judge had accepted was imperative, the judge had not ´grappled with all the alternatives that were open to her´. McFarlane recommended, in the continued absence of the mother engaging in therapy, that the Guardian for the children help facilitate contact, and ordered retrial.

Residence was reversed in favour of the father. The mother´s counter offer of a suspension of residence was rejected.

Shared residence order discharged and replaced with sole residence in favour of the father. Repeat allegations made by the mother against the father and uncle were untrue. The mother had told the child that the reason for the cessation of contact was that the father was too busy. The court paid regard to the impact on the child of the mother´s comments about the father.

In this case, the court had acknowledged that it was the mother´s intractable and unreasonable position which was the bar to contact, but felt helpless to intervene. The case came after years of returns to court. An important judgment, where the trial judge had made an order allowing only indirect contact for the father, restricted to Christmas and his daughter’s birthday. This was an intractable contact dispute, caused by the mother’s hostility to contact. While not an alienation case per se (albeit the child is clearly torn between her own wish for contact and loyalty to the mother and her opposition), McFarlane LJ upheld the approach taken in Re S (Transfer of Residence) [2010] EWHC 192 (Fam) that while noting the importance of a child’s wishes and feelings, the court must consider too whether those wishes and feelings are rational and reasonable.

MacFarlane endorses Munby LJ’s guidance in Re L-W (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253 that there needs to be judicial continuity, judicial case management including effective timetabling, a judicially set strategy for the case; and consistency of judicial approach. He goes further in paragraph 60:

´If, as part of that strategy, the court makes an express order requiring the parent with care to comply with contact arrangements, and that order is breached then, as part of a consistent strategy, the judge must, in the absence of good reason for any failure, support the order that he or she has made by considering enforcement, either under the enforcement provisions in CA 1989, ss 11J-11N or by contempt proceedings. To do otherwise would be to abandon the strategy for the case with the risk that a situation similar to that which has occurred in the present case may develop; to do otherwise is also inconsistent with the rule of law.´

The father’s appeal was successful. While the outcomes recommended by the trial judge were not necessarily in themselves wrong, the systemic failures over a period of years did amount to a breach of the child´s and father´s right to family life under the Equalities and Human Rights Act and MacFarlane suggested the involvement of a multi-disciplinary team to progress matters. The matter was moved to the High Court for the father´s application for contact to be reheard.

Appeal denied. Lady Justice Parker had reversed residence following the mother´s manipulation of the children in opposition to contact.

Regarding wishes and feelings, the Lady Justice Parker makes the following, useful observations:

“72. The social worker, JW, who is warm, caring and committed, urges me to leave the children living with the mother because that is what they say they want. Until I enforced contact she was also saying that there should be no contact, because that is what the boys say they want. The proof of that pudding has been very much in the eating, on present showing. I have more than once stressed in this case, as in others, that the word used in the Children Act about wishes and feelings is “ascertainable” and not “expressed”. “Ascertainable” often means that the Court has to look at actions rather than words. The ascertainable wishes and feelings of these boys have been demonstrated by the evidence that they are more than happy to be with their father. I suspect they may feel some relief being out of the maelstrom. Their grandmother is calm and robust.”

Regarding the social worker and children´s guardian opposing a reversal of residence at that time, the judge makes further useful and intelligent points:

“74. I regard parental manipulation of children, of which I distressingly see an enormous amount, as exceptionally harmful. It distorts the relationship of the child not only with the parent but with the outside world. Children who are suborned into flouting court orders are given extremely damaging messages about the extent to which authority can be disregarded and given the impression that compliance with adult expectations is optional. Bearing in mind the documented history of this mother’s inability to control these children, their relationship with one another and wholly inappropriate empowerment, it strikes me as highly damaging in this case. I am disappointed that the professionals in this case are unable truly to understand this message. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal, Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 requires to be read by all practitioners in this field. Lady Justice Macur gave firm and clear guidance about the importance of contact. Parents who obstruct a relationship with the other parent are inflicting untold damage on their children and it is, in my view, about time that professionals truly understood this.”

The mother had made an extensive list of allegations against the father. The court found that the mother had “added two and two and made five” following comments from the child and observation of what was taken for sexualised behaviour. The court accepted that the father´s not having seen his child for 16 months was damaging to the child, and there was no reason for there not to be contact, and unsupervised contact.

The case highlights that at times there needs to be expert medical evidence considered, and also infers the difficulty a litigant-in-person, and particularly one whose first language is not English may face.

The child and their best interests were also represented by a Guardian-ad-Litem, something which we believe is vitally important in difficult, contested cases which involve intractable contact breakdown and/or alienation. In depth investigation at an early stage is also important, as is the judge hearing the case. When matters were transferred to His Honour Judge Hamilton in May 2014, the new judge had “got a hold of the case”, as commented on by Mr Justice Holman who handed down the judgment. One assumes others had not? Also, there was some criticism of the social worker for having used leading questions when questioning the child, the risk being that evidence becomes contaminated.

There was a finding that the child had been abused by the grandfather, but the mother persisted in allegations against the father, and prompted the child to make allegations in this regard. The judge had given clear warning of the powers available to him:

“[30] At the outset of proceedings I warned both parents of the serious consequences of pursuing this fact finding exercise. Were the allegations now make [sic] of sexual abuse true, then the court would be finding [the child] had been abused twice over, both by the grandfather and, later, by father. It would almost certainly mean, given [the child´s] distress, the need for a section 37 report, and probably an interim supervision order, and very careful evaluation of the need to protect, of a risk assessment, and the need to manage, with care, a deeply damaged little girl.

[31] Were the allegations untrue, then mother would be guilty of feeding her with untruthful stories, of an obsessive nature, about sexual abuse. Again, I would almost certainly be directing a section 37 report and making an interim care order, as [the child] would then need speedy removal from an abusive home.”
The mother sought to appeal a decision removing her child from her, and placing the child in local authority care via an interim care order. The mother argued that she posed no risk to the child´s safety. At appeal, the court agreed with the trial judge, recognising the emotional harm caused by the mother´s having manipulated the child to make false allegations against the father.

The judgment had been accepted by the local authority and children´s guardian. The father and they opposed the appeal.

The court accepted it was ´unconscionable´ to leave the child in the mother´s; care. Worth noting paragraph 21 of the judgment:

“21. I ask the question rhetorically: given the court´s findings, how could the judge leave the child with the mother? No level of sufficient support and necessary protection was described by anyone. To leave the child without protection would have been unconscionable. One has only to consider physical abuse to a child that gives rise to a similar index of harm to understand that such a position was untenable. The submission made on behalf of the mother that her care of the child had in all (other) respects been good or even better than good simply misses the point. More than that level of care was needed to protect this child from her own mother.”
Regarding the reasons why the child wasn´t placed immediately in the father´s care, this is addressed at paragraph 22:

22. The distress that had been engendered in the child, as advised by the children´s guardian, sadly made an immediate move to the father impossible.
This, to our mind, is a landmark judgment, with the court, in this instance, placing the emotional harm caused by parental alienation on an equal footing with physical abuse, and accepting that the harm done to the child met the threshold criteria of significant harm.

An interim care order had been. This followed the making of a conditional residence order in 2014 (that if the mother and step-father did not comply with the order, residence would be temporarily transferred to the father). Contact broke down again shortly after resulting in the children having been placed in their father´s care (who then absconded to the home of a past child minder).

In June 2014, the court separated the children, with one being placed in foster care, and the other placed with the father. The expert had written to the court saying this case was now outside of their expertise and the Guardian had recommended they be replaced by one with public law experience. Five errors were identified in the case at appeal:

The nature and extent of the applications that were made by the parties, the orders that could be made in consequence and in particular the welfare options underlying those orders, were not identified with sufficient or any clarity;
There was no sufficient welfare analysis of the options that were available;
The proportionality of the removal of A on the grounds of ‘safety’ from the care of either or both of his parents was not justified;
The separation of the boys from each other was neither considered nor justified; and
The determination of the court was inappropriately influenced by a discussion between the judge and the boys.
Ryder also said at paragraph 30:

30. It is an inevitable consequence of time not being taken to case manage applications, that if the purpose and key issues are not identified then the identification and analysis of the available options is likely be flawed. So it was in this case. At no stage in the judgment were the options available to the court identified and examined whether as a consequence of the applications of the parties or the position taken by the local authority. It was almost as if the urgency of the hearing drove everyone, in particular the children´s guardian on whom the court relied, to come to the inexorable conclusion that the children would suffer ´a high level of emotional harm´ if they remained in the care of their mother. That was the evidence of the guardian supported by the hearsay opinion of the court´s former expert who she had informally consulted, who advised that both of the children ´should have gone into foster care´ when the arrangements with their father broke down. The weight to be given to the former expert´s opinion is itself an important issue in this case, not least because he was never made available so that his hearsay opinion could be challenged.
TCM Comment: It is not sufficient to assume alienation will harm the children, but to detail how that harm has manifested itself referring back to evidence based history. This is also a stark reminder to people that decisions must turn on the facts of the individual case, rather than being overly reliant on cases law and past decisions of the court in other cases (albeit case law can be helpful in considering options available to the court, and similar circumstances and decisions which may – or may not – be appropriate to the case at hand).

A successful appeal against the court having ordered no contact with CAFCASS supporting that decision.

The lower court had not considered alternatives which might allow the re-introduction of contact.

“14. The judge made no explicit reference to section 1(3)(g), which requires the court to consider the range of powers available to the court under the Act, other than by saying that he had full powers to deal with the case appropriately. In particular, he did not in terms consider the possibility of supervised direct contact. He therefore came to the conclusion that he must follow the recommendation of the court welfare officer. He said that he did so with a heavy heart, because he saw the father’s point:”
“… that if only she could take a few initial steps towards a meeting, that would bring her the reassurance that she craves, would dispel worries and concerns and everything would be fine.””

It is also worth noting paragraph 16:

“[16] The applicable legal principles are clear. First, the welfare of R is the paramount consideration for the court. It takes precedence over any other. Second, the court has in a series of cases stressed the importance of contact between parent and child as a fundamental element of family life, which is almost always in the interests of the child, and which is to be terminated only in exceptional circumstances, where there are cogent reasons for doing so and when there is no alternative. Contact is to be terminated only where it would be detrimental to the child’s welfare. The judge has a duty to promote such contact and to grapple with all available alternatives before abandoning hope of achieving some contact. Contact should be stopped only as a last resort and once it has become clear that the child will not benefit from continuing the attempt. The court should take a medium to long term view and not accord excessive weight to what appear likely to be short term and transient problems. The key question is whether the judge has taken all necessary steps to facilitate contact, as can reasonably be demanded in the circumstances of the particular case; Re C (a Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 521.”

The case is encouraging, and looks to the long-term in respect of the importance of assisting the rebuilding of the parent/child relationship. The child was 11 years old and there had been a gap of 7 years between contact, with indirect contact starting in 2012 which was unproductive. The lower court had left matters to the child in respect of contact happening in the future. At appeal, Lord Justice Christopher Clarke said:

“18. The effect of the judge´s order is to preclude all contact between father and daughter, even indirect, unless R should choose otherwise. It contains no provision which might encourage or facilitate contact in the absence of R making that choice. Such an order is rightly described as Draconian.”

The case was heard in the Chelmsford Family Court. The Guardian supported an order for shared living arrangements and the mother had interfered with the interim contact arrangements leading to the father seeking a reversal of residence.

His Honour Judge Cochrane concluded that further litigation was not in the children´s best interests. He did however find that the mother the mother had caused harm to at least one of the children as a result of her depriving that child of a proper relationship with his father for a significant period in his life.

The judge directed that contact be progressed as previously ordered, with a penal notice attached. Further, the father was to retain the children´s passports, holidays were to be shared, and the mother was to inform the father of any medical matters in relation to the children. An order for shared residence within a child arrangements order was made, with overnight stays from Friday to Sunday on alternate weekends in favour of the father. Telephone contact was to happen in respect of the other parent when the children spent more than three days away from their care. Holidays abroad for a period of two weeks were allowed, but restricted to countries party to the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The children were to spend two hours with the parent who was not caring for them upon the day their birthdays fell due. The mother was prohibited from moving address without giving the father at least two months´ notice. CAFCASS were ordered to monitor contact. The parents must agree on choice of schools in the future.

The court accepted that the father had poisoned the 13 year old daughter against the mother, and there had been little contact between them in the previous 12 months.

Another case where the lower court´s handling of a case involving alienation and older children was “”wholly inadequate”, with the court accepting the child´s wishes and not ordering contact resume, despite it being clear the child was being negatively influenced against the father.

Fortunately for the mother, the appeal was heard by some of the most capable of the Lords Justice, who agreed the judicial process and analysis in the lower court was wholly lacking and the judgment strikingly short.

The mother´s appeal was granted.

Costs of contact arrangements

Duty on parents to work to put aside differences

Child arrangements orders for shared living arrangements

Shared living arrangements – domestic relocation

Shared living arrangements – relocation abroad

Contact – The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Temporary Removal from Jurisdiction Case Law

Shared Living Arrangements Case Law

Section 91.14 Case Law

Reversal of Residence Case Law

Paternity Testing Case Law

Parental Alienation and Intractable Contact Dispute Case Law

Occupation Order Case Law

Without Notice And Non Molestation Order Case Law

Non Biological Parent Case Law

Leave to Remove Case Law

Jurisdiction Case Law

Interim Contact Case Law and Practice Directions

Indirect and Suspension of Contact

Internal Relocation Case Law

What Our Service Users Say

” What an amazing organisation, offering help, support and advice. A really informative and pioneering charity. Thank you! ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say

“ Excellent charity, and volunteers that gives hope and support with practical information, not only to fathers but grandparents / extended family too. A lifeline in devastating situations where ultimately the children are the focus. If contact with your child or grandchild is broken, this is the organization for all relevant information, support and understanding. ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say

” I don’t know how I would have coped without the Shared Parenting knowledge and empowerment from the peer support of FNF. Women are welcome in most settings. ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say

” FNF taught me about the realities of the UK Family Court system at a time when I was very vulnerable and in need of guidance. Their ‘Surviving Separation’ course is excellent. ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say

” The only charity to support any parent or grandparent to regain contact with their child or children, I regularly attend the Manchester group once a month to provide support. ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say

” Without this group I would have been lost. I am the grandmother of a son who had his children taken away by the mother and false allegations submitted to ensure no contact. It has been heart breaking but reading the stories, being part of a community and having access to meetings gives information, advice and the hope and knowledge that it can change. I will keep supporting my son and grandchildren so they are together in the future. ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say

” Families Need Fathers is an inclusive organisation that supports mothers, fathers, and ultimately children. I have personally found their support to be invaluable and truly believe it has saved my life and helped me become a stronger, resilient, and positive human being, father, and husband. They have educated and coached with my own personal development, positive co-parenting, positive parenting, and Family Court and the legal/court process. In that order. The peer-to-peer support is unmatched…I’ve never experienced a more active and supportive group of individuals brought together by a single goal – Happy Families! ”

Families Need Fathers Testimonials - What Our Service Users Say