FII and Parental Alienation Syndrome
No one familiar with the miscarriages of justice resulting from allegations that parents (overwhelmingly mothers) are harming their children by fabricating or inducing their illness (FII) will be able to read the recent High Court judgments concerning Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)[1] without experiencing a sense of exasperation. For decades courts have been ordering the removal of children from one parent (overwhelmingly mothers) and placing them in the care of the other: judges having accepted ‘expert’ evidence that the children were being brainwashed in order to alienate them from the other parent.
A judgment of the President of the Family division on 20 February 2026 uses such an example, a 2019 court order, as its springboard.[2] Although the court expresses significant concern about (para 86) ‘individuals who hold themselves out as ‘psychologists’ and are willing to be instructed in Family Court cases, but who are neither registered, nor chartered as psychologists’, its most important message is directed at Family Court judges: judges who have – in effect – delegated their vital fact finding responsibilities to such ‘experts’. The judgment endorses the statement that (para 55):
“parental alienation” is not a syndrome capable of being diagnosed, but a process of manipulation of children perpetrated by one parent against the other through, what are termed as, “alienating behaviours”. It is, fundamentally, a question of fact.
In the FII context this, of course, strongly echoes the fact that FII is not a diagnosable syndrome[3] and in the words of Ryder J:[4]
… evidence as to the existence of MSBP[5] or FII in any individual case is as likely to be evidence of mere propensity which would be inadmissible at the fact finding stage … . For my part, I would consign the label MSBP to the history books and however useful FII may apparently be to the child protection practitioner I would caution against its use other than as a factual description of a series of incidents or behaviours that should then be accurately set out.
The President’s 2026 judgment (para 5) acknowledges that the process that led to the 2019 Order:
[if] held up for audit against the principles of good practice in cases concerning alleged alienating behaviour which are now well established, every agency involved in these proceedings can be seen to have been at fault’ [and that] “By “every agency”, I am referring to CAFCASS, the children’s solicitor, the local authority and the court.
It has to be acknowledged that the court’s failure in 2019 was (to put it mildly) alarming and this is not simply based on hindsight. Seriously interrogating the extent to which ‘experts’ have the necessary qualifications/experience to assist the court in any particular case has always been a fundamental responsibility of a court and this must be especially so, where the court only has the benefit of one expert. One might also hope (naively perhaps) that in such cases the court might, in the interests of justice, undertake some limited research on the relevant topic – if only to ensure that the expert’s evidence is properly tested.
The President’s judgment notes that (para 55):
Most Family judges have, for some time, regarded the label of ‘parental alienation’, and the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome of that name, as being unhelpful.
We must hope that this is so.
Our research, and that of a number of eminent academic colleagues, practitioners and investigative journalists, suggests that families cannot rely on ‘most Family judges’ appreciating that FII is not a diagnosable syndrome: cannot not rely on Family Court judges being willing to seriously interrogate the extent to which ‘experts’ have the necessary qualifications/ experience; and cannot rely on the Family Court process being informed by the weight of current research – helpfully summarised by Andy Bilson and Taliah Drayak in their most recent FII paper.[6]
That, (to put it mildly) is seriously alarming.
.
[1] For a powerful account concerning Parental Alienation Syndrome see J Bradley The ‘harmful pseudo-science’ infecting Sheffield’s family courts in The Sheffield Tribune 09.08.2025 click here.
[2] Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38. The 2019 Order does not appear to have been published. It was overturned on 30 July 2025 by Judd J in O v C [2025] EWFC 334. An excellent outline of these judgments is provided by L Winson Approach in parental alienation case was “fundamentally flawed” and every agency was at fault, Family President rules Local Government Lawyer 27 February 2026.
[3] See L Clements & A L Aiello The prevalence and impact of allegations of Fabricated or Induced Illness’ (Cerebra, 2023) para 2.31
[4] A County Council v A mother and others [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam) (para 178).
[5] ‘Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy’ a term that has now, in general, been replaced by FII.
[6] A Bilson and T Drayak ‘Fabricated or induced illness – a label ready to be assigned to the history books?’ in Family Law [2025] 965 a pre-publication copy of which can be accessed by clicking here.
Posted 5 March 2026