There is a case here that shows how incredibly complex these situations have been before a transfer of residence (and in this case it was transferred twice - once to the Father, then back to the Mother because the Father said the children didn't want to see her). With umpteen professionals involved before decisions made - guardians, psychologists, family therapy etc. Both parents were at fault of not parenting successfully and including the other parent. And there is a quote from a senior Judge
"Nor ...is it acceptable for a parent to shirk their responsibility by sheltering behind the assertion that the child will not do, or even that the child is adamantly opposed to doing, something and this, I emphasize, is so whatever the age of the child".
".. the responsibility of a parent is tough, it may be 'a very big ask'. But that is what parenting is all about. There are many things which they ought to do that children may not want to do or even refuse to do: going to the dentist, going to visit some "boring" elderly relative, going to school... the list is endless. The parent's job, exercising all their parental skills .....is to get the child to do what it does not want to do. That the child's refusal cannot as such be a justification for parental failure is clear: after all, children whose education or health is prejudiced by parental shortcomings may be taken away from their parents and put in public care."
It says the child's welfare is the paramount consideration of the court.
It's really long and detailed as to the circumstances over the years, but ultimately the Father, having obtained residence because the Mother kept breaching, was then found to have alienated the children against the Mother.
Reading some of the things the children said - shows how alienated children speak about the other parent - the same as in the Dispatches programme. And people think - the child says this and they don't want to see the other parent so why force them? Because they have been psychologically damaged by untruths from a parent - gaslighted - and to be able to think clearly for themselves again, they need to be away from the alienating parent's influence.
This case sounds awful - both parents fighting over the kids and not promoting a relationship with the other one. Even the psychologist thought the kids may have to be split up for their own good.
The psychologist felt the children were so damaged and confused that they should not have any contact with the Father for a while to help them settle with the Mother (because the Father's lies were so ingrained in their psyche).
The eldest one was so entrenched for her Father and against her Mother that the transfer to her Mother may not work - unless the Father actively encouraged her that it was ok (so the alienating parent needs to give "permission" for the child to be free of the polarised positions).
The eldest child started having severe mental health issues (a bit like the "girl" in the Dispatches film who started writing stuff on the wall) after starting to see her Mother again. Because her beliefs instilled by the Father were so entrenched and due to her history being in the middle of it all in the past.
The psychologist said it was such a complicated case that anyone who the elder child confided in (who did not know the details of the case) could be reinforcing the alienation.
That last bit is why I felt so strongly about the Dispatches programme showing what it did without the full details of the case, because they were actually reinforcing the alienation in those two children effectively. They say they can't give full details of the case without breaking the law. But by only showing the end result - the viewer is left to make an uninformed judgement which doesn't show the hell the kids had been through before the courts tried to sort things out for them mentally and safely.
The elder child in the linked case was described as so severely alienated that she would continue to reject the Mother (in other words too late for a transfer of residence to work). The case in the Dispatches programme seems to be one of those - that without specialist intervention, counselling and therapy for the kids - the transfer of residence wouldn't help reunify them with their Dad.
The children are described as having been "weaponised" by their Father in the linked case. An alienating parent can do this. Incite hostility into a child - hard to imagine for normal parents but childrens minds can be filled with all sorts of rubbish and they then believe it.
The difficulty the court had was that absence of their other parent in their lives (in this case the Mother) would cause long lasting psychological damage (despite what the children say - they are children and not fully emotionally developed after all). But that the historic conflict between the parents would also cause damage - and they had to weigh up the benefits and risks.
The children had been given a "false set of memories" by the Father combined with an idealisation of the Father encouraged by the Father. Even though the Mother had caused them some harm in the past by her behaviour (alcohol).
The psychologist felt the degree of alienation was so much and the stakes so high for both parents and the children, that the range of solutions was limited.
The range of options were:
-
The children continuing to live with the alienating parent (the Father in this case) - ie keep the status quo.
-
A 50/50 shared care order with both parents
-
The children being transferred to live with the other parent (in this case their Mother)
-
Splitting the children so the eldest (the most alienated) remained with the Father and the other two (fluctuating) lived with the Mother.
The Father initially preferred the 50/50 option but then said he accepted the transfer to the Mother (as the only way of showing the children he approved of them being with their Mother) which was described as courageous of him - to try and put the children first. It was thought significant therapy would be needed for the children to help with the transition.
But the Guardian's view was it wouldn't work - a complete transfer to the other parent. (That the children may just want to go back to the Father). And that it would cause too much distress for the older child (the most alienated one).
But the Guardian also felt the children shouldn't be separated.
Ultimately the court's decision was that all three children should have residence transferred to the Mother. Which the Father agreed to.
At the hearing - everyone was told of this decision, including the children, who were told by both parents at the hearing. With no contact with the Father for 3 months (as being in the childrens best interests to allow them to adapt).
The big difference between this case and the one televised is that both parents accepted the court's decision that the children should go to live with the other parent and accept no contact for a while.
The only reason a forced removal would have been necessary is if the Mother, in that case, refused point blank to follow the order of the court for transfer of residence, and instead of explaining to the children and allowing this as being in their interests, incited them to resist it. They may have refused or resisted anyway if they were extremely alienated.
Sorry this was such a long post - but I feel so strongly that the Dispatches programme did a lot of harm and in effect, was complicit in the alienation of those children by interviewing them - when they did not explain that many years of expert involvement would have taken place before such a move would have been taken. And how complex the needs and mental health of the children and how entrenched they may have become by a parent's resistance.
I think ultimately it would have been wrong to leave the children in the case below, with the parent who was inciting them against the other parent - however much distress the transfer caused them - and the hope was they would settle. What seems clear about this case though is that the children needed specialist help to allow them to settle. We weren't told if this was available to the children in the Dispatches programme.
www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6041d4642c94e06a9be7b95b