T (Parental Alienation), Re

In private-law children proceedings, a change of residence is determined by the child’s welfare, not by a heightened test that treats the remedy as a last resort or draconian. The court must apply the welfare checklist and evaluate each realistic option on its own merits, followed by a comparative assessment of the advantages and disadvantages.

Where one parent is unable to promote the child’s relationship with the other parent, and the child is suffering emotional harm from that situation, a transfer of care may be justified. The court must assess both the short-term disruption caused by the move and the longer-term welfare benefits of a secure relationship with both parents.

The proceedings concerned T, aged five, who had lived throughout her life with her mother. The father sought a child arrangements order that T should move to live with him after repeated attempts to establish and maintain contact had failed.

The case had involved proceedings before magistrates, district judges and the High Court, together with social work and psychological assessments. By the third day of the final hearing, the mother no longer actively opposed the proposed transfer, although she sought an eventual shared-care arrangement. The central issues were whether T should live with her father and what contact with her mother could safely take place.

1. Welfare and applicable test. T’s welfare was paramount. The court considered Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, the no-order principle, the need to avoid delay and the presumption in section 2A of the Children Act 1989 that involvement of both parents furthers the child’s welfare. A transfer of residence was not subject to a separate or enhanced threshold.
2. Welfare evaluation. The court accepted the legal summary in Re L (A Child), including that expressions such as last resort or draconian must not alter the welfare test. Each realistic option had to be assessed on its own internal merits and then compared with the competing options. The court adopted the balancing exercise described in Re F (A Child) (International Relocation Cases) and the authorities there cited.
3. Findings and application. The mother had not consistently promoted T’s relationship with her father, was not presently able to promote a positive relationship, and had alienated T from him. T had suffered and continued to suffer emotional harm through being denied a positive paternal relationship and through the negative portrayal of her father. The father was better able to promote T’s relationship with her mother.
4. Outcome. Although moving from her primary carer would cause short-term upset and disruption, the court accepted the professional evidence that a sensitively managed move would not be traumatising and offered the prospect of a positive relationship with both parents. The court ordered that T should live with her father, with supervised and reviewable contact with her mother under the transition plan. Wardship was discharged, and there was liberty to apply for three months. The court also permitted an immediate change of school.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings before magistrates, district judges and the High Court, including the making of wardship and interim child arrangements orders. No appeal from an identified decision is stated. The present court determined the final welfare issues at first instance.