By Jessica Bradley
Liz has been going through family court since 2020, after her ex-husband was arrested and charged with domestic abuse and put on bail conditions; however, the charges were dropped a few months later after he pled self-defence, Liz says.
During the fact-finding a few years ago, Liz told me, the father admitted to several allegations of domestic abuse. The judge instructed a psychologist who is renowned for accusing mothers of parental alienation. She assessed Liz, her son Henry, and the father, and claimed that Liz was causing harm to Henry by trying to alienate him from the father.
The judge ruled that the father should have contact with Henry, but Liz has fought against this as Henry became so distressed when going to meet him.
“I took him to the contact centre, and he cried uncontrollably on the way. He didn’t understand why it was happening,” Liz says.
“The next time, he cried again, and said he didn’t want to see his dad anymore. I thought that was the end of it, but I got a call saying [the father] is expecting him to be brought again to the contact centre because [the psychologist] said I’d alienated him.”
Several hearings and an addendum psychological report later, Liz is in court for a management hearing. I attend virtually.
The hearing starts with the father’s counsel, who says it’s a shame that Liz doesn’t accept the judgment made 10 months ago, in November last year. He’s referring to the parental alienation accusations.
He argues that they can’t see how Henry benefits from Liz dragging things out, and says her denial of parental alienation is ‘significantly’ harming Henry, and preventing him from “developing into a well-rounded individual”.
He then turns to the maternal grandparents, who say they are in court to support their daughter, Liz. They recently removed themselves from a viability assessment, which is used to help determine if a family member is a viable option to care for a child.
They tell the judge that they decided not to go ahead with fostering because they believe he should stay with Liz. Henry’s grandad says:
“He should be with his mum. I couldn’t believe the [November] judgement; I saw what happened historically. That’s why we’re here today – as soon as I was told I may have to hand my grandson over to his abusive father, I couldn’t do it.”
The grandmother echoes this. She says: “We’ve been there when [Liz] has come home crying, and when she’s been threatened to have her child taken away from her. [The father] has bullied her all the way through. Taking [Henry] away would be the cruellest thing.”
The judge accepts that the grandparents are acting in what they consider Henry’s best interests, but that the hearing needs to focus on Henry.
Then there’s a break, so that all parties can look at a psychological report, written by a new psychologist, and emailed out that morning. The report recommends that Henry be given six separate assessments, including for neurodivergence, one by a trauma therapist, a family therapist, and an occupational psychologist.
The local authority is considering a Section 37 addendum report, which would aim to offer more information around a child’s welfare, because they say the psychological report raises more questions than it answers.
“There needs to be consideration on the balance of harm… on a welfare basis, we believe we need a full assessment to assist the local authority to complete its decision-making on the steps we need to take to assist [Henry],” says counsel.
Counsel for the guardian says there’s no timescale or plan for all these recommended assessments.
“The guardian wants time to digest, but from what she has read [of the new psychologist’s report], she’s very concerned that [Henry] is being asked to go through another assessment.”
The judge agrees that there’s no clear way to proceed and no understanding of who will pay for all these assessments.
“There’s no understanding… of the impact of this on [Henry], who’d be seeing at least six different people….This level of complexity needs some sort of guiding force to it.
“I don’t think the situation for [Henry] is getting any better. I think it’s dire; his behaviour is extremely worrying. The social worker is right that if we don’t sort this out for him now, he could descend into criminality. This boy is described as gifted, he should be achieving great things in the world, but at the moment, that isn’t going to happen.”
The judge urges everyone to work together, because otherwise, Henry’s future doesn’t look very promising.
I speak to Liz a few weeks later, and she tells me that Henry has started these assessments.
But she is continuing to fight for his well-being, which, it’s clear to her, has been harmed by the very court that purports to have his best interests at heart.
“I had support in place for him, but the father removed it all, saying it was reinforcing the [parental alienation] narrative he’s been given,” Liz says.
“Since then, his behaviour has spiralled so badly and he has lost his friends at school because he cannot cope and is overwhelmed.
“But his school,’ she says, “says the court order is restricting them from helping Henry.”
She is fearful of what further damage might be done to her son by the ongoing proceedings and the professionals who continue to perpetuate the argument that she is a risk to her son, and that the father, who reportedly admitted to domestic abuse during proceedings, is not.
“I’m incredibly sad that [Henry] has been treated so badly… and that we are at high risk from these people.”
Published 2 June