Skip to content

Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) — [2024] EWFC 75 (B)

TL;DR. Family Court (England & Wales) fact-finding decision (HHJ Middleton-Roy, 28 March 2024) that treated alleged parental-alienating behaviour as a question of fact for the court, not a psychological diagnosis, and found the father had weaponised the label of "parental alienation" as part of a course of coercive control against the mother. Companion welfare decision followed at Re GB [2024] EWFC 168 (B). Currently the leading published example of an English fact-finding court declining to accept a parent's PA framing at face value.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-07-29 · License: CC BY 4.0

Citation

Re GB (Parental Alienation: Factual Findings) [2024] EWFC 75 (B), HHJ Middleton-Roy, 28 March 2024.

Companion welfare decision: Re GB (Welfare) [2024] EWFC 168 (B).

Court

Family Court (England & Wales), sitting at first instance.

Facts

Cross-allegation private-law proceedings between two parents. The father alleged that the mother had engaged in parental-alienating behaviour towards the children; the mother alleged that the father had engaged in domestic abuse and coercive control, and that his repeated deployment of the PA label was itself part of that abusive pattern. The court held a fact-finding hearing to determine which allegations were made out on the balance of probabilities before turning to welfare.

Holding

HHJ Middleton-Roy adopted the framing that has become the settled English approach to alienating behaviour allegations post-Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448:

  1. "Parental alienation" is not a diagnosis. It is not a psychiatric or psychological syndrome for the court to receive expert diagnosis on. Whether alienating behaviours have occurred is a question of fact determined on the ordinary civil standard.
  2. The label cannot substitute for evidence. Assertions that the other parent has "alienated" the child do not, without more, discharge the alleging party's burden of proof.
  3. PA allegations must be tested against the record of the alleging parent's own conduct. Where the alleging parent has himself engaged in behaviour designed to distress, control, or discredit the other parent, that conduct is relevant to whether the child's reluctance to spend time with him has an alternative and better-supported explanation.
  4. On the facts of this case, the father's PA allegations were not made out. The court instead found that the father had engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, and that his deployment of the PA label was part of that pattern — a rhetorical instrument used to distress the mother and reframe her protective responses as pathological.

Significance for parental alienation

Re GB matters not because it rejects the concept of alienating behaviour — English law recognises that alienating behaviour occurs and can constitute significant harm — but because it demonstrates the balanced factual analysis that the Re H-N line of authority requires. Published English authorities on PA are dominated by the Re S (2020) / Re C (2023) line, in which alienation findings led to transfers of residence to the target parent. Re GB is the reciprocal case: the fact-finding court concluded that the parent asserting alienation was himself the primary source of harm. It is essential citation for any UK proceeding in which one party asserts PA against the other, because it establishes that the assertion itself is not evidence and must be tested against the alleging party's own conduct.

The decision aligns with the Family Justice Council's December 2024 Guidance on responding to a child's unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour, endorsed by the President of the Family Division, which likewise treats alienating behaviour as a factual question and warns against its use as a defence to domestic-abuse allegations.

Practical use in UK proceedings

  • When acting for a parent facing a PA allegation: cite Re GB to establish that the assertion is not self-proving, and that the court will require the alleging parent's own conduct to be examined as part of the factual analysis.
  • When acting for a parent alleging PA: Re GB is a reminder that framing evidence in behaviour terms (specific incidents, dates, communications), rather than syndrome terms, is essential to meet the Re C (2023) evidentiary standard.
  • In safeguarding practice: Re GB alongside the FJC 2024 Guidance operates as the current double authority for the proposition that alienating-behaviour allegations cannot be used as a defence to or a distraction from domestic-abuse findings.

Cites and connects to

  • Re H-N and Others (Children) (Domestic Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 — the fact-finding methodology.
  • Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) — Mr Justice Williams on the expert-instruction framework; behaviour-frame preferred over syndrome-frame.
  • Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568 — appellate recognition of alienating behaviour as a matter English courts can find.
  • Family Justice Council Guidance (December 2024) — the settled procedural framework.
  • Children Act 1989 s.1(3) welfare checklist — the operating framework applied.

Cited by

Subsequent English family-court fact-finding decisions; expected to feature in the next FJC and Children and Family Court Advisory Service (CAFCASS) practice-guidance updates.

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice. Consult an English family-law solicitor before relying.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com