S (Parental Alienation: Cult: Transfer of Primary Care)

In determining a child’s welfare, a transfer of primary care is not confined to cases of last resort. It may be ordered where it is necessary and proportionate to prevent continuing harm and to preserve the child’s relationship with the other parent. In parental-alienation cases, the court must act with exceptional diligence and take effective measures before serious or irreparable harm occurs. A parent’s physical withdrawal from an organisation causing the harm may be insufficient. The court must assess whether the parent has also disengaged psychologically from the organisation’s harmful beliefs and practices, acknowledged their effect on the child, and begun reversing the alienation. The child’s wishes and feelings may require reduced weight where they are distorted by alienation, and further evidence may properly be declined where obtaining it would cause additional harm.

The proceedings followed the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568, which allowed the father’s appeal against HHJ Meston QC’s refusal to transfer the child’s care and remitted the matter for an early final determination. The remitted hearing examined whether the mother had made the immediate and definitive break with Universal Medicine required by the Court of Appeal, whether the process of alienation had begun to reverse, and what arrangement best promoted the child’s welfare.

The father sought transfer of primary care. The mother sought continuation of the existing shared-care arrangements, relying principally on her claimed dissociation from Universal Medicine and therapeutic evidence. The central issue was whether the child should remain with the mother despite continuing risks, or move to the father notwithstanding the short-term harm caused by separation.

1. Welfare and proportionality. The child’s welfare was paramount. The welfare checklist and the presumption of parental involvement were considered, together with the parties’ Article 8 rights. A transfer of primary care, although a significant interference with family life, was not restricted to cases of last resort. It was appropriate where the welfare evaluation made it necessary and proportionate.
2. Assessment of harm. The court balanced the short-term distress and disruption caused by moving the child from the mother against the medium- and long-term harm likely to result from continued exposure to Universal Medicine’s teachings and practices and continuing alienation from the father. The latter risks were judged substantially more serious. The child’s risk of running away could be managed by sensible practical arrangements.
3. Nature of the required break. The mother’s deletion of contacts and physical separation from Universal Medicine were insufficient. The necessary change required psychological disentanglement from its beliefs and practices, acknowledgement of the harm caused to the child, cessation of those practices, and steps to reverse the alienation. The evidence did not establish that this had occurred.
4. Child’s wishes. The child’s expressed wish to remain with the mother was assessed through the prism of alienation and emotional enmeshment. Further direct evidence was unnecessary because it would cause additional conflict and distress, and the child’s voice had been conveyed through the independent social worker.
5. Order. The child was ordered to live with the father. There was to be no direct or indirect contact during the extended summer vacation, subject to arrangements reassuring the child and mother. Later contact was left to the father’s agreement in consultation with Ms Ware, with supervised contact contemplated if the child’s welfare permitted. The order was without a time limit, and permission to appeal and certification under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 were refused.

• High Court (Family Division): Following remission, the court determined the father’s application and transferred primary care to him.
• Court of Appeal: In Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568, the father’s appeal was allowed and the case was remitted for further consideration.
• Family Court: HHJ Meston QC had refused the father’s application to transfer care.