Facts found in a parental alienation saga.
Facts:
This case relates to fact-finding in long-running child arrangements proceedings, concerning serious allegations by the father against the mother, who had previously been found to have alienated the children against him. The experts mandated by the court reached the conclusion that they could not resolve the conflict between the parents and that, if the children remained living with the mother, they would suffer emotional and psychological harms which would have an impact on their future lives. As result, the judge ordered the transfer of residence of the children from the mother to the father. This decision was unsuccessfully challenged by the mother. There were various allegations by the mother and children over the years which were always proven untrue and thus rejected by the judge. In December 2021, at a without-notice hearing, Ms Woodall testified that the children explained that they were approached by an ‘unknown male’ and were given phones and money to keep in contact with their mother. During those phone contacts, they were told to run away and make false allegations of abuse against their father.
Decision:
The judge thoroughly looked at the various lines of evidence, interviewed the children and reviewed the existing case law. On the balance of probabilities, the father proved each and every allegation. After years of proceedings, Keehan J was happy that the facts were proved by the father.
Keehan J concluded: ‘The mother has had and has a very distorted and false view of her children, her abusive role in their lives and the devoted care given to them by this father. I am in no doubt that her actions amount to coercive and controlling behaviour towards the children and towards the father and I so find.’ The judge went on and explained that he does not ‘doubt whatsoever that if this mother were ever again to have a role in the children’s lives by contact or any other means she would repeat her past abusive behaviour towards them without any regard for their well-being and their welfare. I see no prospect of the mother being able to effect any change in her distorted view of the world or in her distorted and abusive behaviour towards the children and the father.’
Regarding the costs, Keehan J followed the Supreme Court ruling in Re T (Children) whereby the Supreme Court concluded that orders for costs should not be made in proceedings relating to children unless there is reprehensible behaviour. In the Judge’s opinion, the mother’s conduct falls within this category. The judge also made an order to liquidate the mother’s assets which were frozen through an injunction to satisfy the order for costs.
Implications:
The case is based on a long-running sage stretching over a period of four years. Despite the attempt by the mother, the judge kept a neutral attitude displacing the usual bias towards the mother. This case also highlights that coercive control can involve both mothers and fathers. From this point of view, it is an important judgement as it shows that children can be manipulated in divorce and separation. It also demonstrates how difficult the fact-finding stage can be in a bitter divorce.