A and B (Children: ‘Parental Alienation’) (No. 5), Re

In a private-law children fact-finding hearing, allegations must be proved by the party making them on the balance of probabilities. Findings must be based on the whole body of evidence, including properly drawn inferences, rather than suspicion, speculation or assertion.

Oral evidence and demeanour remain relevant, although the court must account for the fallibility of memory and assess oral and documentary evidence in its proper context. A lie is not, without more, direct proof of guilt. In assessing children’s evidence, the court must scrutinise the circumstances in which accounts were obtained and any fundamental flaws in interviewing practice.

A sustained pattern of coercive or controlling behaviour may constitute domestic abuse and cause serious emotional or psychological harm without physical violence.

The proceedings concerned two children and their parents following earlier orders transferring the children’s residence from the mother to the father. The children had subsequently made allegations against the father, leading to police and safeguarding involvement. The mother alleged that the children’s accounts were false and opposed the father’s applications.

The mother did not attend the final fact-finding hearing. The court considered the children’s recorded police interviews, witness evidence, expert evidence and the history of the proceedings. The central issues were whether the father had proved the allegations concerning the mother’s conduct, whether that conduct amounted to coercive and controlling behaviour, and what consequential orders should be made.

1. Findings of fact. The father proved, on the balance of probabilities, each allegation sought against the mother. The court relied on the totality of the evidence, including the children’s ABE interviews, the consistency of their accounts, the expert evidence and corroborative circumstances. The findings included covert contact, tracking, pressure to make false allegations, instructions to abscond and the use of third parties.
2. Evidence and credibility. The court applied the established principles that the burden lies on the party advancing an allegation and that findings must be based on evidence, not suspicion or speculation. The court adopted a balanced approach to oral evidence, memory and demeanour. It treated the children as compelling and credible historians and found no indication that they had been coached.
3. Lies and children’s accounts. The court applied the Lucas principle: a conclusion that a person has lied on a material issue is not itself direct proof of guilt. Children’s evidence requires particular care because children may be poor historians and suggestible. The court must consider what was said, the circumstances in which it was said, and any serious departures from proper ABE practice.
4. Domestic abuse and welfare. The mother’s conduct amounted to coercive and controlling behaviour towards the children and the father. The court accepted expert evidence that renewed contact would expose the children to further emotional and psychological harm. It concluded that the mother should have no future role in the children’s lives.
5. Costs. Although the usual position in children proceedings is no order as to costs, the mother’s reprehensible behaviour and unreasonable stance justified a costs order. The mother was ordered to pay the father £240,954, with directions for specified frozen assets to be liquidated towards satisfaction of that order and the earlier costs order.

This was a first-instance fact-finding and costs judgment. The judgment records earlier unsuccessful appeals by the mother and an earlier Court of Appeal decision concerning police interviews, [2022] EWCA Civ 982, but no appeal from the present decision is stated.