Skip to content

Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999 — Transfer of Residence in Intractable PA Cases

TL;DR. UK Court of Appeal decision endorsing transfer of residence as an available judicial remedy when one parent has implacably resisted contact and conventional measures (mediation, supervised visits, fines) have failed. The Court confirmed that while transfer is a serious step, it can be the only effective remedy in entrenched alienation cases — and the trial judge's discretion to order it must be respected on appeal absent error of principle.

Maintained by Alan Markson · Last reviewed: 2026-05-16 · License: CC BY 4.0

Citation

Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999

Holding

The Court of Appeal upheld a first-instance order transferring residence from the resident (alienating) parent to the non-resident (targeted) parent in an intractable contact-dispute case where:

  • Multiple prior contact orders had been ignored or undermined
  • Mediation had failed
  • Supervised contact had failed
  • Financial penalties had failed
  • The children had been progressively alienated

The Court held:

  1. Transfer of residence is a legitimate remedy in entrenched intractable-contact cases
  2. The "draconian" nature of the remedy does not preclude its use where less intrusive remedies have demonstrably failed
  3. Children's stated preferences cannot be the sole determining factor when those preferences appear to be the product of alienation
  4. The trial judge's discretion deserves substantial appellate deference

Significance

Re W (Children) [2012] is the leading UK appellate authority confirming that transfer of residence is a available remedy in PA cases — and that the appellate courts will respect trial judges' decisions to order it when supported by evidence.

This decision sits alongside:

  • Re S (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 219 — earlier UK transfer authority
  • Re C (Parental Alienation; Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam) — modern operational framework
  • Re H-N (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 448 — dual-frame abuse + alienation analysis

Together they form the UK doctrinal stack: transfer is available (Re W), expert framing is rigorous (Re C), abuse + alienation can coexist (Re H-N).

Practical use

Sample UK motion language:

Per Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999, where conventional remedies — mediation, supervised contact, enforcement orders — have demonstrably failed to secure the contact ordered by the Court, transfer of residence is a legitimate remedy available to the Court. The pattern of [N] years of unenforced contact orders, the documented alienating behaviors per Baker's 8 indicators, and the children's stated preferences appearing to be the product of alienation (per the Section 7 / expert evidence), together justify the Court's consideration of a transfer of residence under the Children Act 1989.

The threshold for transfer (UK practice)

Courts will consider transfer of residence in PA contexts when:

  1. Multiple prior orders have been ignored — typically 2-3+ orders over 18+ months
  2. Less intrusive remedies have demonstrably failed — supervised contact, enforcement orders, fines
  3. Expert evidence supports the alienation finding — typically Section 7 or appointed expert
  4. Transfer is workable — receiving parent has capacity, housing, suitable circumstances
  5. The child's best interests are served by transfer — not as punishment to the alienating parent but as the path most likely to restore the lost relationship

Transfer is not automatic and not common — but Re W confirms it's available when the threshold is met.

The cross-jurisdictional pattern

UK transfer of residence in PA cases mirrors:

  • US "custody flip" — though terminology varies state to state; Harman/Lorandos 2020 documented in 40-50% of substantiated PA cases
  • Italian "affidamento esclusivo" with primary residence change
  • Belgian residency-change orders under Civil Code Art. 374 amendments
  • Australian transfer of substantial-and-significant time under amended Family Law Act s60CC (post-2024)

All operate from the same principle: when the alienator's behavior is structurally incompatible with the child's right to relationship with both parents, the court may use residence as the remedy.

Citing posts

# Post
17 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/pa-vs-estrangement-courts
29 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/emergency-motions-pa
37 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/when-to-go-to-trial-vs-settle
41 https://www.antialienate.com/blog/the-reunification-journey

Primary source

  • BAILII: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/999.html

Disclaimer

Wiki entry, not legal advice.

CC BY 4.0 · antialienate.com