Skip to content

NF v AF [2025] CSOH 13

Neutral citation: [2025] CSOH 13
Court: Court of Session, Outer House (designated Family Judge; case ref F25/23, remitted from the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh)
Decided: 2025-02-05
Panel: The Hon Lord Stuart (Senator of the College of Justice, designated Family Judge)

Why this case matters

Lord Stuart, sitting as designated Family Judge of the Court of Session (Outer House), made formal findings of fact that the defender mother had emotionally abused both children through knowingly false and escalating allegations of sexual abuse against the pursuer father, made with the deliberate intention of alienating him from the children. The 'alienation' language is judicial-ordinary-language, not expert-borrowed diagnosis: Lord Stuart treats the conduct as falling within the existing statutory definition of 'abuse' in s.11(7C) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. This is the strongest explicit Outer House finding to date that a course of false allegations against the other parent constitutes 'direct emotional abuse' of the children. Notwithstanding the findings, the s.11(7) welfare-paramount and 'no order' principles drove the result: residence was refused to the pursuer, no contact order was made at all, and only the defender's specific issue order for foreign holidays was granted. The court directed that the findings be communicated to the children by Dr MacKinlay.

Procedural history

A cause for s.11 orders under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (s.11(2)(c) residence, s.11(2)(d) contact and s.11(2)(e) specific issue) was raised in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh and remitted to the Court of Session. The parties separated on 5 February 2019. The defender's 5 February 2019 police statement expressly recorded that the pursuer had never hit her or the children. From 28 February 2019 the defender made escalating allegations: 'non-recurrent voyeurism', then 'sexual abuse / inappropriate sexualised behaviour', then concrete allegations of penetrative sexual abuse of both children. Each child underwent two joint investigative interviews and a forensic medical examination; none produced supporting evidence and both children stated they had no memories of any such behaviour. Dr MacKinlay produced three reports (28 April 2022 psychological assessment regarding contact; 5 July 2022 contact between Anne and the pursuer; 8 November 2023 update). The pursuer had no direct contact with the children from 2019 save for a single supervised café meeting with Anne arranged through Dr MacKinlay. The pursuer sought a residence order for Anne, failing which direct contact; by close of submissions he no longer pressed direct contact orally. The defender sought a single specific issue order for foreign holidays with Anne of up to 21 days per year without prior consent. The curator ad litem supported indirect contact only and supported the specific issue order. Lord Stuart issued his opinion after a full proof on 5 February 2025.

Counsel

  • Ms Bain (lay representative) for pursuer (NF, who appeared party)
  • Bowan KC (King's Counsel (senior counsel)) — instructed by MHD Law for defender (AF)
  • Cartwright (junior counsel) — instructed by MHD Law for defender (AF)
  • Allison (counsel) — instructed by Millard Law for curator ad litem (Ms Shewan)

Experts

  • Dr MacKinlay — Chartered Clinical Psychologist; single jointly-consulted expert (instructed by jointly by the parties)
  • Ms Shewan — Curator ad litem appointed to represent the children's welfare interests at proof (instructed by Court of Session)

Holding

Under s.11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, a parent's course of knowingly false and escalating allegations of abuse against the other parent, made with the intention of alienating that parent from the children, constitutes 'direct emotional abuse' of the children within the s.11(7C) statutory definition of 'abuse'. The court does not require any 'parental alienation syndrome' diagnostic construct to make such a finding: it grounds it in the existing statutory text plus expert evidence (here, Dr MacKinlay's unchallenged evidence). However, the s.11(7) welfare-paramount and 'no order' principles continue to govern remedies: such a finding of alienating emotional abuse does not automatically displace the welfare calculation against residence transfer or compelled contact where, on the expert evidence, change would now cause greater harm to the child than the status quo.

Verbatim

74 (en):

In light of [the] above conclusions, in my judgment, the defender has engaged in a course of conduct where she has knowingly made false and increasingly serious allegations against the pursuer concerning abuse of the children, including sexual abuse, and deliberately misrepresented the children's medical symptoms in support of those false allegations, all with the intention of alienating the pursuer from the children.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/ba1nsc4o/2025csoh13-nf-against-af.pdf

[51] (en):

Having reached that conclusion, it follows from the unchallenged expert evidence of Dr MacKinlay, which I accept, the defender's actions in telling Mary and Anne that the pursuer had sole possession of the illicit materials and by reporting the pursuer's possession of the illicit materials to the police, which ultimately contributed to the alienation of the pursuer from the children, constitutes direct emotional abuse of Mary and Anne by the defender.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/ba1nsc4o/2025csoh13-nf-against-af.pdf

[69] (en):

I accept that the evidence in this case supports the conclusion that the defender's actions have been abusive of the children and consequently caused them harm, not least by alienating the pursuer from them but by also leading them to believe that they have been abused by the pursuer.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/ba1nsc4o/2025csoh13-nf-against-af.pdf

[31] (en):

The family courts are familiar with Dr MacKinlay, and I have no hesitation in confirming that Dr MacKinlay's relevant expertise and experience qualify her to give the skilled opinion evidence she has to assist the court.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/ba1nsc4o/2025csoh13-nf-against-af.pdf

Outcome

Residence order in favour of the pursuer refused. No contact order made (including no indirect contact order, despite Dr MacKinlay's and the curator ad litem's support for one). Defender's s.11(2)(e) specific issue order granted, permitting the defender to take Anne out of the UK for up to 21 days per calendar year on holiday without prior consent of the pursuer. Court directed that the formal findings of fact be communicated to the children directly by Dr MacKinlay.

Comparative jurisprudence

  • BVerfG 17.11.2023 – 1 BvR 1076/23 (DE) — bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023 — German Federal Constitutional Court — pointed in the opposite direction on the PA construct itself, holding that a Sachverständigengutachten grounded in PAS is constitutionally untenable. NF v AF reaches an apparently opposite-direction conclusion only because Lord Stuart's analysis is grounded in statutory 'abuse' (s.11(7C) CSA 1995) and unchallenged evidence from a chartered clinical psychologist, not in any PAS construct.
  • OLG Frankfurt 7 UF 88/25 (DE) — olg-frankfurt-7-uf-88-25-germany-2026 — Companion German OLG decision operationalising BVerfG 1 BvR 1076/23; same critique of PAS-based Gutachten.
  • Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 (UK-EWS) — re-y-2026-ewfc-38 — England & Wales — Sir Andrew McFarlane P set aside an unregulated PA-evaluator's findings. NF v AF is structurally insulated from such a set-aside because Dr MacKinlay is a chartered clinical psychologist whose evidence was 'unchallenged' (para [31]).
  • Re A (Children) (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWFC B56 (UK-EWS) — Earliest of the modern English PA arc; same fact pattern of escalating unsupported allegations operating to sever contact.
  • Re S [2020] EWCA Civ 568 (UK-EWS) — English Court of Appeal — 'least harmful' welfare analysis; same reasoning Lord Stuart applies under s.11(7) CSA 1995.
  • Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448 (UK-EWS) — English Court of Appeal guidance on findings-of-fact processes in unsupported sexual-abuse-allegation cases — closely parallels the fact pattern in NF v AF.
  • NJDB v JEG 2012 SC (UKSC) 293 (UK-SCO) — Lord Reed's foundational guidance on the proper judicial approach in Scottish s.11 cases; cited by Lord Stuart at paras [7]–[8].
  • White v White 2001 SC 689 (UK-SCO) — Lord President Rodger's foundational guidance on welfare-paramount in Scottish contact disputes; cited by Lord Stuart at paras [7]–[8].

Subsequent reception

See also

  • case-study:bverfg-1-bvr-1076-23-germany-2023
  • case-study:olg-frankfurt-7-uf-88-25-germany-2026
  • case-study:re-y-2026-ewfc-38
  • jurisdiction:scotland
  • evidence:alienating-tactics-as-child-abuse

Sources

  1. NF v AF [2025] CSOH 13 — Opinion of Lord Stuart, 5 February 2025 (PDF) — https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/ba1nsc4o/2025csoh13-nf-against-af.pdf (Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  2. Lord Stuart — judicial profile — https://judiciary.scot/home/judiciary/judicial-office-holders/senators-of-the-college-of-justice/lord-stuart (Judiciary of Scotland) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  3. Emotional Abuse and Parental Alienation in Child Welfare: Comprehensive Commentary on NF v AF [2025] CSOH 13 — https://www.casemine.com/commentary/uk/emotional-abuse-and-parental-alienation-in-child-welfare:-comprehensive-commentary-on-nf-v-af-2025-csoh-13/view (CaseMine) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  4. Children (Scotland) Act 1995 — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/36/contents (legislation.gov.uk) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  5. NJDB v JEG [2012] UKSC 21 / 2012 SC (UKSC) 293 — UK Supreme Court judgment — https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0224 (UK Supreme Court) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  6. Brodies LLP — Sarah Lilley, Parental alienation in Scottish child law — https://brodies.com/insights/family-law/parental-alienation-in-scottish-child-law/ (Brodies LLP) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  7. SKO Family Law — Caroline Millar, Parental alienation in Scotland — https://www.sko-family.co.uk/news/parental-alienation-in-scotland/ (SKO Family Law) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  8. Shared Parenting Scotland — English appeal court judgment exposes Scottish blindspot on Parental Alienation — https://www.sharedparenting.scot/english-appeal-court-judgment-exposes-scottish-blindspot-on-parental-alienation/ (Shared Parenting Scotland) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  9. Scottish Women's Aid — Still Not Safe: Child Contact in Scotland (16 Days briefing, December 2024, PDF) — https://womensaid.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/SWA-Briefing_Still-Not-Safe_16-Days_2024.pdf (Scottish Women's Aid) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  10. Scottish Parliament Petition PE2057 — Promote shared parenting and prevent the separation of children from their parents — https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE2057 (Scottish Parliament) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30
  11. Scottish Government FOI release 202100132015 — Information relating to parental alienation — https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100132015/ (Scottish Government) [en] — accessed 2026-05-30

Editorial notes

  • Children's identities anonymised by Lord Stuart as 'Mary' and 'Anne'; preserved.
  • Dr MacKinlay's full given name and HCPC / BPS registration numbers are not set out in the published opinion; her qualifications are confirmed only as 'Chartered Clinical Psychologist' per Lord Stuart's para [31].
  • Counsel first names: 'Bain' (lay rep for pursuer), 'Bowan KC' (senior for defender), 'Cartwright' (junior for defender), 'Allison' (counsel for curator ad litem). Full given names are not set out in the published opinion front sheet.
  • A 'Mr Templeton' appears as a defender's witness on the digital-forensic provenance of the illicit materials (para [44]); his full name, credentials and instructing party are not publicly confirmed beyond the judgment text.
  • Shared Parenting Scotland's post-judgment institutional response specifically on NF v AF is not publicly confirmed as a discrete piece at time of writing.
  • A direct Scottish Women's Aid case response to NF v AF (as opposed to the Dec 2024 general briefing) is not publicly confirmed.
  • No mainstream Scottish press coverage of NF v AF located at time of writing; consistent with strict anonymisation conventions in Scottish family-law reporting.
  • Lord Stuart deliberately does not adopt 'parental alienation' as a syndrome or diagnosis; he uses 'alienating' and 'alienation' as ordinary-language descriptions grounded in the s.11(7C) statutory definition of 'abuse'.

Author: Alan Markson.

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.