WARWICKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL v THE MOTHER & Ors

In parental-alienation cases, the court must act with exceptional diligence and take effective measures directed to the child’s medium- and long-term welfare. A change of residence is not automatically a last resort, but every proposed intervention must be justified by the child’s welfare and assessed against its immediate effects.

At an interim stage, separation from a parent requires the child’s safety, including psychological welfare, to require immediate separation. The court must balance the harm said to justify separation against harm caused by the care plan itself, including physical risk, emotional deterioration and excessive interference with family and social life. A court must not turn the case into a battle of wills or punish a child for behaviour arising from distress.

These care proceedings concerned two sisters, X and Z. The court was required to decide whether an interim care order in respect of Z should continue and whether she should remain in foster care following findings in earlier private-law proceedings that the Mother had alienated both children from the Father.

The proposed reunification plan had failed. Z strongly opposed remaining in foster care, had self-harmed, expressed suicidal thoughts and repeatedly absconded. She was separated from her mother, sister and wider social life, while the local authority sought further psychological assessment and therapeutic intervention. The central issue was whether the asserted protection from long-term emotional harm outweighed the immediate harm and risks caused by the existing arrangements.

1. Outcome. The court directed that Z return immediately to the Mother’s care. If the local authority could not amend the care plan accordingly, an Interim Supervision Order was to be made with Z living with the Mother. Directions were left for the final hearing.
2. Applicable approach. Applying Re S [2020] EWCA Civ 568, the court held that parental-alienation cases require exceptional diligence and effective action. The court must take a medium- to long-term view, while keeping the child’s welfare paramount. A change of main home is not automatically a last resort; the court must select the best welfare solution on all the circumstances.
3. Human-rights balance. The existing care plan substantially interfered with Z’s Article 8 rights. The court had to assess both whether protection from the Mother’s alleged emotional harm outweighed the harm currently being caused, and whether the proposed long-term therapeutic benefit had a reasonable prospect of being achieved. Z’s self-harm, suicidal ideation, repeated absconding and exposure to physical danger were immediate risks. The court had to avoid converting the proceedings into a battle of wills or effectively punishing Z for distressed behaviour.
4. Interim separation. The test for interim separation was whether Z’s safety, including her psychological welfare, required immediate separation, applying Re L-A [2009] EWCA Civ 822 and Re B and KB [2009] EWCA Civ 254. That test was not met. The reunification plan had failed, and continued foster care was unlikely to restore Z’s relationship with the Father. It was more likely to cause her to associate the Father with her misfortune.
5. The likely destabilising effect on X did not justify a decision contrary to Z’s welfare interests. Z’s strongly expressed wishes and feelings were given considerable weight, although her competence to instruct separately did not make her the decision-maker as to her own best interests.

First-instance care proceedings. The judgment refers to earlier private-law fact-finding proceedings before HHJ Watson, in which findings of parental alienation were made against the Mother and a therapeutic residential reunification plan was ordered. This court did not reopen those findings.