When Chloe Roberts’ 13-year-old daughter, Isla, got frightened during contact with her father, she begged her mum to go to the family courts and get contact stopped. Isla cut off all communications with her father and refused to go for contact thereafter. Chloe, who had herself been subjected to coercive control and violence by Isla’s father, assumed the family courts would be as horrified as she was at Isla’s treatment and experiences during contact; she promptly raised an action. However, when she voiced her concerns, her allegations were denied by her ex, and he countered with an attack on Chloe’s parenting skills and allegations that she was manipulating Isla’s views. Isla’s father laid the blame for Isla’s rejection of him, firmly with her mother, Chloe.

The crossclaim of parental alienation has the power to whitewash claims of egregious domestic abuse, even when there is an abundance of evidence to support the allegations. Research published this year by the University of Edinburgh (Morrison, Callaghan, Tisdall) shows how the family courts contribute to the pandemic of violence against women. Inequality in the family courts has caused decades of harm and suffering; the structure of the family courts allowed it to become a target, and once it got captured the harm compounded.

When a judge sees before them what appears to be two parents quarrelling, they have a difficult decision to make; to help reach that decision they often instruct an ‘expert’ to take the child’s views on contact. When Isla Roberts made disclosures of abusive behaviour during her interview with the court reporter, the reporter pressured her. He said,

 “Surely it wasn’t that bad; he really wants to see you, if he apologises would you agree to meet him?”

Isla kept saying she didn’t want to but eventually she was overpowered and, in her words, the court reporter,

“got what he wanted” which was her compliance.

The Edinburgh University research showed that the adult manipulating the child’s views in domestic abuse cases was not the child’s mother; it was the ‘experts’. Mothers consistently focussed on the concerns and views of their children; for many of the children in the study, violence and abuse was their main concern.

Earlier research shows that children’s views are under much more scrutiny by the family courts when a child does not want contact with an abusive parent than when they do.

When one mother sought to get independent legal representation for her daughter she was scolded by the Sheriff who suggested that seeking independent advocacy was an act of alienation. The study therefore raises many important questions about the concept of parental alienation within the context of domestic abuse. In Scotland, court ‘experts’ are predominantly lawyers. The research put forward that adults (legal professionals and parents) were using the views of children,

‘as a strategic resource during the legal process to advance their own disputes and arguments’.

The research referred to how children’s views are translated, not transmitted. In Chloe Roberts’ case, the court reporter also reconstructed the narrative; the abusive behaviour towards Isla was diminished and omitted from the welfare report, and the label assigned was ‘parental dispute’ as opposed to being flagged as a ‘risk’ case. When court reporters in Scotland influence views, conceal mother’s and children’s concerns of abuse and report inaccurately they breach their code of conduct rules of ‘independence’ and ‘trust and personal integrity’. This has serious and harmful consequences for women and children.

When it comes to recommendations to the judge, the label ‘parental dispute’ paves the way for contact with abusive fathers to take priority over protection from harm. The Edinburgh University research found that the term ‘parental dispute’ acts to conceal the influence children have in a mother raising a dispute about contact. The contact arrangements recommended to and ordered by the judge in Chloe’s case were subsequently no different to that in a non-domestic abuse case. The judge ordered Isla into an immediate mediation with her father and did not investigate the abundant evidence of abuse.

Intense pressure was put on Isla by the family courts to attend the mediation but she was terrified and refused to go. Chloe felt compelled to force Isla and faced harsh consequences for not doing so, including a transfer of residency or a charge of contempt of court and jail. Chloe was once again exposed to her ex-husband’s violence through the contact arrangements and encouraged not to raise claims of abuse again. The entire family court experience psychologically harmed both Chloe and Isla.

Research carried out by Dr Samantha Jeffries in Brisbane provided a comprehensive synopsis of existing expert reports in Australia, the UK and the USA. Her research concluded that,

‘ “best interests” considerations prioritise the maintenance of perpetrator/child relationships, and thus “abuser’s rights” over victim safety. Judicial officers are not experts in domestic violence and they can only make decisions on the basis of the evidence before them, the assessments made by the “experts” likely play an important role in best interest considerations. Of concern is current research that calls into serious question the expertise of these “experts” when it comes to proceedings involving allegations of coercively controlling violence.’

Dr Joyanna Silberg, consultant psychologist and an international expert on dissociation in children and adolescents in the USA, researched cases involving parental alienation in the context of domestic abuse. Her study focused on “turned around cases” ones where domestic abuse victims got accused of making false allegations of abuse which were later judged to be valid. The study found alarming results. In all 27 cases examined, the father was abusive and the mother was seeking to protect the child.

Perpetrators of abuse usually deny their behaviour and claim they are falsely accused but false accusations of abuse are rare and false accusations of parental alienation are much more common, as becomes clear when the evidence is thoroughly investigated in cases containing allegations of both.

Dr Silberg reported,

‘Patriarchal beliefs go hand in hand with pathologizing mothers who raise concerns about abuse. One of the main pathologies attributed to mothers who raise abuse concerns is that of being an “alienator.”’

Her research found that,

‘Judges who initially ordered children into custody or visitation with abusive parents relied mainly on reports by custody evaluators and guardians ad litem who mistakenly accused mothers of attempting to alienate their children from the father or having coached the child to falsely report abuse. As a result, 59% of perpetrators were given sole custody and the rest were given joint custody or unsupervised visitation. After failing to be protected in the first custody determination, 88% of children reported new incidents of abuse. The abuse often became increasingly severe and the children’s mental and physical health frequently deteriorated. The main reason that cases turned around was because protective parents were able to present compelling evidence of the abuse and back the evidence up with reports by mental health professionals who had specific expertise in child abuse rather than merely custody assessment.’

The academic research relating to court experts from the USA bears striking similarities to the research in Brisbane and Edinburgh, which suggests a common denominator at the root of this severe problem. Parental alienation is now an industry promoted by mental health ‘experts’ and legal professionals and has become the perpetrator's go-to defence in the family courts. The harm post-separation coercive control and violence does to women and children has been researched and reported. The harm the family courts do to women and children is moving into the spotlight too. A blind eye has turned for many years to the harm inflicted by the parental alienation experts, and it is now a necessary time to recognise it as nations unite to eradicate violence against women. Threatening and punishing female victims of abuse to reward their client is cruel, unethical and dangerous.

When children get court-ordered into contact with known perpetrators, and domestic abuse survivors get court-ordered to co-parent with their abuser, the mental health of both suffers and their lives are put at risk. Child homicide and femicide become inevitable and a greater harm threatens society.

The justice system in Scotland is in the process of radical reform; children’s rights will get incorporated in legislation and welfare reporters regulated. Trauma-informed approaches using credible domestic abuse experts would contribute to making the process kinder, fairer and safer for the vulnerable and help eradicate the family courts contribution to violence against women.