Published: 20 February 2026

The President’s decision in Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 represents a significant development in the Family Court. It reshapes the approach to expert evidence and allegations of alienating behaviour. The case concerned two children removed from their mother in 2019 on the basis of findings that she had “alienated” them from their father. Those findings relied primarily on the opinion of a psychological expert. The expert was neither registered with the health and care professionals council (HCPC) nor chartered by the British Psychological Society (BPS).

Following a Part 18 application brought by the mother, the Court has now set aside all previous findings. It has concluded that the process adopted in 2019 was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with what is now considered good practice.

Key Findings of the Court

Expert evidence improperly relied upon

The central issue was the reliance placed upon the opinion of an expert who did not meet the regulatory standards expected in modern family proceedings. The President held that such an expert should not have been instructed, and that the court had erred in accepting her analysis without first determining the underlying factual allegations.

Lack of prior factual findings

Serious allegations of domestic abuse made by both parents had never been determined. Instead, the court moved directly to rely on psychological interpretation. The President emphasised that this approach inverted a fundamental principle: judges must find facts; experts advise on those findings, not replace them.

Findings set aside without re‑determination

Given the passage of time and the impracticality of revisiting historic allegations, the court set the findings aside entirely. Any future welfare decisions for the younger child must now proceed without reference to the 2019–2020 findings or to the original expert’s analysis.

Clarification of the Modern Approach to Allegations of Alienating Behaviour

The judgment sits firmly within the current legal landscape shaped by:

• Re C (Parental Alienation: Instruction of Expert) [2023]

• Family Justice Council (FJC) Guidance on Alienating Behaviours (Dec 2024)

• P v M [2023]

• O v C [2025]

Across these authorities, a consistent framework has emerged.

Domestic abuse must be decided first

The Court reaffirmed that any allegations of domestic abuse must be determined before alienating behaviour can be assessed. A child’s reluctance to spend time with a parent may be an appropriate justified reaction to abusive behaviour rather than evidence of manipulation.

“Parental alienation” is not a diagnosis

The Court emphasised that alienation is not a clinical syndrome. Whether a parent has engaged in alienating behaviours is a factual question for the court, not a matter for psychological diagnosis.

Only regulated Psychologists should be instructed

Going forward, the President has issued firm guidance:

• Expert psychologists must be HCPC‑registered or BPS‑chartered;

• Only in exceptional circumstances may an unregulated expert be instructed; and

• If so, the reasons must be clearly recorded in a short judgment

This reflects a significant shift towards enhanced rigour, transparency and quality assurance in expert instruction.

Systemic Learning and Professional Practice

A notable aspect of the judgment is the recognition that the issues in this case were not confined to the expert alone. The Court identified systemic failures involving: CAFCASS; the children's solicitor; the local authority; and the Court.

The judgment therefore serves as a wider reminder of the professional responsibilities owed to children and families when navigating complex relational disputes.

Why This Case Resonates

This judgment is highly significant for practitioners because it reinforces essential principles:

The need for sound foundations in welfare decisions

Long‑term decisions about a child’s living arrangements cannot rest on interpretive expert theories without a factual basis. The case demonstrates the profound consequences that can follow when this principle is overlooked.

The importance of expert regulation

With the Family Justice Council’s 2024 guidance and the proposed rule changes to the Family Procedure Rules, the Court’s message is clear: expert evidence must come from appropriately qualified, regulated professionals.

The shift toward evidence‑based, trauma‑informed practice

As understanding evolves around domestic abuse and its impact on family dynamics, the courts are increasingly focused on objective behaviour rather than labels. Re Y reinforces the need for careful distinction between:

• Justified protective responses; and

• True alienating behaviours.

The broader implications for case management

The judgment underscores the importance of proper sequencing. Fact‑finding must precede welfare evaluation, and expert assessment should follow, not lead, that process.

Conclusion

Re Y is a pivotal case in the ongoing development of family justice. It reaffirms core procedural safeguards, strengthens expectations around expert evidence, and provides clear direction for future cases involving allegations of alienating behaviour. Above all, it underlines the need for decisions about children to be firmly grounded in established facts and informed by qualified, regulated professional input.