Child Contact Arrangements

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

11:01

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

I will call Alison Hume to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children in child contact arrangements.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to lead a debate on putting children first in child contact arrangements, an issue that is of great importance to me, to my constituents and to other Members of this House.

When parents have separated and children are involved, they often turn to the family court. Family courts are at the centre of a child’s right to safe family arrangements. However, so many are not functioning in the child’s best interests. Allegations of domestic abuse are estimated to occur in up to 62% of private law cases under the Children Act 1989 in family courts in England and Wales, and counterclaims of parental alienation are increasingly being made in response to allegations of abuse.

So-called parental alienation syndrome is when one parent undermines or destroys the child’s relationship to the other parent through a pattern of manipulative behaviour. It is a pseudoscientific concept with no basis in law or medicine. However, accusations of parental alienation have been made on multiple occasions by unregulated experts appointed to assess the family and provide recommendations to the court.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate on a very complex issue. There were elements of the Courts and Tribunals Bill that were impossible to support, but it also sought to address the issue of a child’s consent in contact arrangements and, importantly, the need for the child’s opinion to be a consideration that is given weight. Does she agree that the child’s desires must be considered, not simply overlooked, and that the Government must make these changes outside the Bill if it falls?

[Alison Hume]

I completely agree that the child’s voice must be heard and is too often overlooked.

Some of these so-called experts lack proper qualifications and are not regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. Changes proposed in 2025 to address the issue of unregulated psychologists have been criticised as too weak and do not affect experts who are registered with the HCPC. HCPC regulation is also limited, with complaints taking up to seven years, during which experts can continue to practise. The proposed changes will not do anything to address parental alienation experts who are successfully registered and regulated. I am concerned that if any reviews or reform focus only on unregulated experts, all that will do is drive more business into the hands and pockets of experts.

If parents do file a complaint, that in itself can be used as evidence against the parent alleged to be practising parental alienation, as proof that they are entrenched and unable to accept professional opinions that do not align with theirs.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House and for mentioning the so-called experts. We know that accusations of so-called parental alienation are too often used against mothers who are trying to protect their children, but because so few family law cases are publicly available, we do not know the true extent of the problem. The campaigns led by Right to Equality, Women’s Aid and Hague Mothers are important, but does my hon. Friend agree that when a mother says, “My child is not safe,” the court should hear her and believe her rather than using the guise of parental alienation to dismiss her?

[Alison Hume]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the issue. I completely agree that unfortunately we are seeing far, far too many mothers who are disbelieved and have had their children removed from them without any basis for doing so at all. Lives are being destroyed.

If a parent complains, there is a very significant risk that that will be used against them. Ultimately, it should not matter whether an expert is regulated or unregulated if regulated and unregulated experts both rely on the same harmful pseudoscience and inflict equally devastating consequences, particularly on mothers and their children. The advice provided by experts can have a significant influence on the judge’s decision about child contact arrangements: the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 harm report highlighted the fact that allegations of parental alienation are often accepted by the family court without robust scrutiny. Evidence from survivors continues to show that counter-allegations of parental alienation are taken more seriously than those of domestic abuse. In many cases, claims of alienation can lead to the child being removed from the survivor parent, despite existing evidence of abuse. A constituent of mine had her children removed in an alienation case when the theory was introduced after she alleged domestic abuse.

The non-profit Right to Equality has conducted a large-scale survey of mothers whose children were removed from their care in private law proceedings. The survey reveals concerning patterns around child removal, including the role of parental alienation allegations, limited fact-finding on abuse and the influence of expert recommendations. In total, the 217 mothers had 342 children removed from their care. That is quite clearly not in the best interests of those children and is deeply traumatic for their mothers.

I have heard countless seriously concerning stories about children put into high-risk arrangements by the family court. Julia Margo, the co-founder of the charity Fair Hearing, with which I have been working closely, had a traumatic experience with the family justice system. After discovering that her former partner had been convicted of child sexual abuse, she endured years of legal battles, during which he took her to court 37 times demanding access to their children. Meanwhile, she felt dismissed and disbelieved by the system. She said that the court seemed more concerned about the risk of parental alienation than about the safety of her sons being left alone with a paedophile.

In another case, a child was taken away from her mother without warning at 10 years old. That day, a social worker came to the house and told her that she had half an hour to pack her things. The child recalled:

“I stuffed my favourite outfit in a bag—this blue shirt and leggings—along with a photo of me and mum. And then I got this bunny, my favourite soft toy, and I left it on her bed. It is what mum would do for me if she ever had to go away.”

The young girl later discovered that that simple goodbye had been used to criticise her mother, who had been her main carer since her parents had separated two years earlier. She said:

“The social worker said to my mum that no child should be worried about their parent’s feelings, and it was a sign of abuse.”

At 12 years old, the child wrote to the president of the family division, England’s most senior family judge, seeking the representation that she was previously denied. A district judge had found abuse from her father and found that her mother harboured a great deal of anger against him. A consultant psychiatrist, Dr Mark Berelowitz, was then brought into the case and claimed that the reason she was opposed to seeing her father was that she had been subjected to her mother’s

“unresolved angry feelings about the breakdown of their relationship.”

The judge then ordered that the child should move to live with her father, as her mother was not giving her emotional permission to enjoy a relationship with her father.

It is clear that in this case, as in so many others, parental alienation allegations represented the complete disregard of a child’s wishes during the court process. In the child’s words:

“I was removed from my mother’s care within hours of a court order being made…I spent the ensuing five years faced with professional after professional who refused to believe me. They said I was repeating my mother’s words and that, despite findings of domestic abuse, it was better to have a relationship with the person who frightened me.”

Parental alienation is a harmful ideology that profoundly impacts children. However, there are signs that the winds of change may now be moving through the family courts. In February this year, the president of the family division handed down a landmark judgment dismissing findings of so-called alienation against the mother. She had been prohibited from seeing her children for five years after alleging abuse in private family law proceedings. Lawyers have since characterised the initial ruling as draconian and extraordinary.

In December 2019, the court ordered that the children, who were then aged nine and 12, be removed, and it granted the father sole custody. The evidence was given by an unregulated psychologist, Melanie Gill. In overturning court findings informed by Gill’s reports, the president of the family division’s ruling could open the door for other families assessed by Gill, who has acted as an expert witness in up to 200 cases. Guidance published by the Family Justice Council in December 2024 says that experts should not be appointed to look for alienation; instead, judges should take a factual approach to identifying specific alienating behaviours. It was this new information that enabled the mother to bring her case back to court.

In a historic part of the judgment, the president of the family division has recognised the significant barriers that mothers face when seeking to appeal and has asked the Family Justice Council to consider an alternative procedural approach proposed by the legal team representing the mother and her son. I urge the Family Justice Council to consider that proposal as a matter of urgency, so that children and their parents who have been wrongfully separated because of pseudoscientific claims can finally have their cases reviewed.

However, there is still more work to be done. Hundreds of children and mothers have been wrongfully separated by family courts in England and Wales. This is a matter of national shame. Although the 2024 guidance and recent judgment from Sir Andrew McFarlane are clear and consistent, there is a risk that by themselves they will not be able to prevent the underlying error. As a route to justice, such judgments depend on the protective parent securing legal representation, identifying the procedural defect and bringing a part 18 application to set aside, years after the original order.

As I have mentioned, the president of the family division himself has acknowledged that mothers in this position face significant barriers to appeal. That is why I have been working on an amendment to the Courts and Tribunals Bill; I am grateful to Baroness Levitt KC, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, for the time she has taken to discuss it with me. Through the amendment, I propose to introduce a statutory presumption operating at the front end of proceedings, before findings of fact are made and before residence is disturbed. That would effectively prevent harm, rather than relying on a remedial route that few will successfully be able to navigate. We need to ensure that the family justice system is reformed so that the voice of the child is always put at the centre of proceedings, and so that allegations of alienation never take precedence over allegations of abuse.

I welcome the fact that, thanks to timeless campaigning by the indomitable Claire Throssell and by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the presumption of parental involvement set out in the Children Act 1989. This is a long-overdue correction to the pro-contact culture identified in the 2020 harm report and will address what the court must presume about contact in general. I also welcome the Government’s rolling out of child-focused courts nationally, which will put children at the centre of proceedings and resolve cases quicker.

An important question remains unaddressed, however: when a child resists or refuses contact with a parent against whom abuse is alleged, what weight should the court give to that response as evidence? That gap is currently doing significant harm. Too often, in current practice, the answer has been to reframe that resistance as the product of so-called alienating behaviour by the protected parent. Doing so risks reinterpreting the child’s voice not as a possible indicator of harm, but as evidence of manipulation.

I am also aware of cases in which a child discloses abuse by their father, particularly child sexual abuse, and those disclosures are then used as evidence of alienation against their mother, meaning that when a child makes a disclosure it can work against the mother, who risks losing the child. My simple amendment would effectively prevent the use of counterclaims of alienation to undermine or distract from allegations of domestic abuse, and would ensure that the child’s evidence has the weight that it deserves.

Does the Minister agree that for many of the hundreds of children and mothers who have been forcibly separated, the route to justice through appeal is hard to access? Does she agree that further reform is urgently needed to ensure that children’s voices carry the evidential weight that they should carry in family court proceedings? Does she support strengthening the Courts and Tribunals Bill further so that if a child has experienced or witnessed abuse, the child’s not wanting to see the perpetrator is first assumed to be a reasonable reaction in the family courts?

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I completely endorse the hon. Lady’s calls. I have talked about how we need reform to the family courts. Will she support my calls for the Government to support family contact centres? In my constituency, the Woking Family Contact Centre has been run by volunteers for 25 years, which is an amazing achievement. We need to ensure that children are well supported after a traumatic incident. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government need to do much more to support family contact centres?

[Alison Hume]

I have raised with Baroness Levitt not only the lack of access to child contact centres but the cost of access. It appears that many of them are unregulated, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.

To conclude, everybody wants to see the family justice system evolve to better recognise children’s lived experiences, support safer and more effective participation, and make decisions that promote long-term recovery and healthy outcomes. I ask the Government to seize the opportunity presented by the Courts and Tribunals Bill to totally discredit the use of experts who subscribe to parental alienation and to enshrine the rights of the child in law, to ensure that those speaking their truth are properly heard.

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and commend her for securing such an important debate.

I want to start by reflecting on the stories that she shared—stories of children feeling unheard and of families in anguish. No one could listen to them and fail to be moved. As a mum, I find them really difficult to hear, but people do not need to be parents to understand the pain that they describe. Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their wellbeing and future, as all of us here do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light.

I know from my hon. Friend’s previous speeches in the main Chamber, as well as from the meetings she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about ensuring that children’s voices are not lost in family court proceedings. She is right; no one could disagree that children must be at the heart of any decision that the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives. Whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children we work for. It is their welfare, experiences and futures that matter. They are who I have in mind when I speak today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Courts and Tribunals Bill and the need for children’s voices to be heard and believed when they say that they have experienced abuse. The question is, are we listening when a child tells us that something is wrong?

The family courts often deal with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. Throughout those proceedings, the child’s welfare must be the guiding principle. I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which makes it clear that the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration when the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child. It is also why the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of that Act requires the court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. Those requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders; they are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who also raised that issue. I reiterate the Government’s position clearly: we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome. We do not believe that it can be diagnosed.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is true that the Government do not recognise parental alienation and the syndrome, but courts too often do. In fact, a report released just yesterday by the campaign group Right to Equality that analysed language used in family court judgments found that over 70% of those judgments used victim-blaming language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to open up the Judicial College to some scrutiny if those are the kinds of judges that it is producing?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I was discussing that report with Baroness Levitt yesterday, so it is one that I am conscious of and one that we will be looking at.

The Family Justice Council has published guidance to assist courts in handling cases of this nature. Importantly, the guidance recognises that there can be entirely justified reasons why a child might fear or reject contact with a parent. Those reasons can include domestic abuse, a parent’s limited involvement in the child’s life and poor parenting. The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made, a child’s rejection is a justified response to that abuse. That behaviour should not be characterised as alienating behaviour. That is incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them.

The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion. Taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council’s guidance are clear: children’s voices must always be central in those cases. I also acknowledge the important point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), as well as the fantastic work that contact centres undertake. That work is so important to the relationships of parents and their children and wider family relationships as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal. As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight those cases, and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of that is of a parent and child being torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, with seemingly no straightforward means of resolution.

That is why I welcome the important work being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the family division to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed. Although it would not be appropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of that work, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we recognise the importance of the concerns and are closely monitoring the work as it progresses.

My hon. Friend also raised an important question: what more can we do to ensure that children’s voices carry weight in family courts? That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. I assure her that there are already encouraging signs of progress. In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to guide judges on how to write to children so that they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children. The Family Justice Board brings the voices of children into the heart of the Government’s work in this area by including representatives of the Family Justice Young People’s Board in its meetings. That means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people, but we know that there is more to do.

My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the child-focused model. Following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling that model out nationally over the next three years. It is a significant change in approach. Too often family proceedings become focused on the conflict between parents—between adults. The child-focused model centres on the needs and views of children at the start of every case through the introduction of the child impact report. That report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, with relevant agencies and, crucially, with the children themselves in most cases. That means that judges receive better information earlier and can make orders that are safe and sustainable, sparing many children the trauma of their cases repeatedly returning to court. The impact is already clear: cases operating under the model were resolved about twice as fast as the national average, which means that children can get on with their lives rather than being stuck in the limbo of family court proceedings. Importantly, children who have experienced the model consistently report feeling listened to; one young person described feeling as though a weight had been lifted from their shoulders. That speaks volumes.

My hon. Friend also spoke about wider reform, including the case for a family justice Bill. I understand that ambition but would point to the significant programme of reform already under way. We are repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that is testament to the brave fight of campaigners such as Claire Throssell, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and many more. Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026 we are restricting the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility in cases of serious child sexual abuse and where a child is born of rape. My colleague Baroness Levitt has confirmed that we will implement Jade’s law by the end of the year. Taken together, those measures will protect thousands of children each year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also rightly raised the problem of unregulated parental alienation experts. Families facing family court proceedings are often navigating some of the most difficult parts of their lives. It is absolutely essential that experts are suitably qualified, properly regulated and held to appropriate professional standards. So-called experts on parental alienation are practising the kind of pseudoscience that we do not want to see in family proceedings.

I again thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on such a crucial topic and for her determination in championing these issues. Every child who comes into contact with the family justice system is already navigating the most difficult circumstances. They deserve a system that protects them, that listens to them, and that puts their welfare above everything else. I believe that every hon. Member in the Chamber shares that goal. We want children to be safe, to be heard, and to have the chance to move forward with stability and hope. That is what this Government are determined to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.