Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) [2020] EWCA Civ 568
The Court of Appeal confirms that parental alienation is a child protection concern.
Introduction
In Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult), the Court of Appeal considered the effects of parental alienation and found that when a judge identifies an immediate risk to the child’s welfare, sufficient undertakings should be given to protect the child. Furthermore, when a process of alienation has begun to occur, whether the other parent has contributed intentionally or otherwise, the court must take steps to counter it before additional difficulties or delays arise.
Background to the Case
The child’s parents separated when she was an infant. Although she had contact with her father, the child lived with her mother, who was an adherent of Universal Medicine. The father became increasingly concerned about its effects on his daughter; for example, she had stopped eating foods which she once enjoyed and was demonstrating unusual behaviour. He obtained 1) a child arrangements order to divide time equally between himself the mother, and 2) a prohibited steps order to prevent the mother from involving their daughter in Universal Medicine. However, the mother repeatedly breached this order, including by taking the daughter to visit the Universal Medicine headquarters.
The father subsequently sought a variation to allow the daughter to live with him. He also requested that any time spent with the mother was on condition that she obeyed the prohibited steps order. He expressed that the mother’s beliefs in Universal Medicine were influencing the daughter in a way that was alienating him from her; for example, during visits the mother would ring and ask to speak to the daughter in secret. The father noted that his daughter’s behaviour was escalating, and she was saying things such as “You’re not love daddy, Serge [the leader of Universal Medicine] is love. You don’t know anything daddy and Serge knows everything” or “They [family members] won’t reincarnate because they’re eating gluten.” Cafcass advised that the court should determine if the father’s concerns was factual, and if so, steps should be taken to protect the child.
An independent social worker assessed the family and noted that the child felt that her father was different because he did not follow her beliefs. This was starting to alienate them from each other. The social worker concluded that the child was at risk of harm from the mother’s beliefs in Universal Medicine and, unless the mother disassociated herself, it would be better for the daughter to live with her father and have supervised contact with her mother.
Despite this, the mother refused to give up Universal Medicine or acknowledge the recent Australian court ruling which found the organisation to be a cult and the leader to have sexually assaulted several participants. She submitted that it was discriminatory to stigmatise Universal Medicine, as opposed to other common belief systems, and said that the daughter should be able to believe in this if she wanted. She also pushed for a temporary reduction in the child’s time with the father.
In reviewing all the evidence, the trial judge found that Universal Medicine was “potentially harmful and sinister,” and agreed with the father that continued exposure would put the child at risk. Nonetheless, he noted that both parents loved their daughter and were capable of meeting her needs. He dismissed the father’s application for variation, on the basis that changing the existing arrangement would be unsettling and distressing for the child.
The judge did, however, request that the mother gave formal, clear and specific undertakings to the court, agreeing to the terms of the existing order and dissociating herself and the daughter from Universal Medicine.
The daughter subsequently refused to stay with the father on several occasions. When she did, she displayed troubling behaviour such as breaking down and phoning her mother multiple times; hitting him; refusing to come out of a dark cupboard; and trying to run away from the flat.
The father appealed to the Court of Appeal on three grounds:
- The judge did not correctly assess the risk and undertakings from the mother were not sufficient to protect the child.
- The judge found that the child was becoming alienated from the father, but did not consider this, along with the risk above, to demand removal from the mother’s shared care.
- The judge should have detailed the undertakings and required them to be made before making the order.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal found that the judge had accurately identified four types of harm in relation to the child’s welfare:
- The wide-ranging psychological and physical effects on any young child of Universal Medicine ideas;
- The particular emotional harm to this child arising from the parental rift over Universal Medicine;
- The emotional harm to the child of becoming alienated from her father;
- The harm arising from a change in the child’s living arrangements.
However, they found that errors had been made in balancing each of these risks. Firstly, the judge had identified immediate risk to the child’s welfare in all aspects, due to the mother’s involvement in Universal Medicine. However, the measures taken by the judge to mitigate the harm was “highly unlikely” to be effective. The social worker’s recommendation, that therapy and a genuine commitment were necessary for the mother to extricate herself from the organisation, were not placed as conditions in the written judgement.
Secondly, the judge had found that alienation had started to occur. However, he did not take effective steps to counter it. Inviting the parents to agree to some form of an undertaking was insufficient in this case, given the mother’s unlikeliness to disengage from the teachings of Universal Medicine.
Third, the judge did not correctly consider the child’s medium to long term welfare. Yes, a change in living situations would have been drastic and “a very steep challenge” in the short term. However, there would be long term harm to the child arising from Universal Medicine and parental alienation.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the father’s appeal and provided the mother one last chance to leave Universal Medicine, start therapy, and reverse the process of alienation of the child from her father. The court warned that without “wholesale transformation in the mother’s position,” the further hearing was likely to “find it necessary” to transfer the child’s care to her father.
Why Re S (Parental Alienation: Cult) Matters
Re S confirms that a child may be at risk due to a parents’ belief systems, and clear steps should be specified to ensure that no harm is caused. Additionally, when a process of alienation has started to occur (whether intentional or not on the part of the parent), the court has an active duty to use its powers to stop this situation. For example, any undertakings should be strong and specific.
Practical Implications for Clients
- Where one parent’s belief system is affecting a child’s behaviour, nutrition or other aspects of their life, it may require experts (such as social workers or the family court) to assess whether continued exposure is in the child’s best interests.
- When one parent influences a child (whether intentionally or not) to have a negative view of the other parent, and this is unjustified, it can be seen as parental alienation.
Key Points for Family Lawyers
- Even if there are good reasons to do so, a child arrangements order might not always be changed. This is because changes to the existing arrangements can be seen as uncomfortable or upsetting for the child. Clients should be aware that the court may only intervene where the long term effects would be significantly harmful.
- Once the process of parental alienation starts, it can quickly worsen without intervention.
- Undertakings must be strong, specific and able to adequately address concerns.
Conclusion
In addition to identifying short-, medium- and long-term risks to a child, the Court of Appeal found that these must be carefully balanced against each other. In the case of Re S, the mother’s beliefs in Universal Medicine had begun to alienate the daughter from her father, and having found this to be occurring, the court had an active duty to prevent this.
By: Tiffany Carpenter
31 October 2025