Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 is one of the most important recent family law decisions dealing with allegations of parental alienation and domestic abuse. The case serves as a stark reminder of what can happen when courts, experts and professionals reach conclusions before the underlying facts have been properly established.

The background
The parents separated in 2014 and became involved in long-running proceedings about their two children. The original court case took place in 2019 when the children were 9 and 12. Both parents made extremely serious allegations against each other, including allegations of domestic abuse. A Cafcass (i.e. court welfare) officer recommended a fact-finding hearing so the court could determine what had actually happened. However, that hearing never took place.

Instead, a psychologist was instructed. The court’s first error was to allow the children’s guardian to instruct the psychologist when the guardian had not followed proper procedures on the appointment of that expert.

That expert concluded that the mother had alienated the children from their father. She recommended that the children be moved into the father’s care and that contact with the mother should stop.

The guardian who had recommended this “specialist family assessment” by the psychologist supported those recommendations.

The court’s approach at the final hearing
The critical error made by the court was its acceptance of the expert’s conclusions before any attempt to get to the bottom of the parents’ competing allegations at the crucial fact-finding hearing. At the final hearing, the judge heard from the expert first and then decided there was no need to hear further evidence or conduct the planned fact-finding exercise. The mother’s allegations, including allegations of serious domestic abuse, were never decided.

Relying heavily on the expert’s assessment, the court ordered that the children move to live with their father and that the mother’s contact cease.

The President of the Family Division later described this as a “fundamental error”. Judges decide facts. Experts provide opinions based on facts that have been established.

The consequences for the mother
The mother consistently maintained that the conclusions reached about her were wrong.

Because she would not accept the expert’s assessment or engage in therapy based on those findings, this was viewed as a lack of insight. As a result, her attempts to restore contact with the children were unsuccessful and she remained separated from them for more than five years.

The mother made several attempts to challenge the judge’s decision, but they were unsuccessful. In 2022 an order (known as a s91(14) order) was made barring her from making further court applications for a year.

Why was the case reopened?
The new application came about in 2025/2026 because the child Y became old enough to vote with his feet. He chose to return to his mother’s home. His older sister, by this time over 18, had also returned to live with the mother a few months earlier.

Despite Y’s age (now about 14/15) and his clear wishes, he was removed by the police from his mother’s home at 4am. He was placed in a series of foster homes and eventually with a family friend where he lived until the final court order.

By this time Y had reached sufficient maturity to be represented by his own legal team, and at the final hearing of this new application, the court finally made an order that he be allowed to live with his mother.

Perhaps the most tragic aspect of the case is its impact on Y himself. He was removed from his mother’s care at around the age of nine and did not return to live with her until he was almost sixteen. Those seven years represent a significant part of any child’s life: years of growing up, forming memories, achieving milestones and developing a sense of identity.

It is impossible to know precisely how the separation affected Y, but few would dispute that such a prolonged loss of a relationship with a parent is likely to have had a profound emotional impact. This case is a sobering reminder that procedural errors in family law proceedings are not merely technical mistakes. They can shape the course of a child’s entire childhood, with consequences that may be felt long after the litigation itself has ended.

The court’s decision
This new application came before the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane. Unsurprisingly he concluded that the original process had been fundamentally flawed.

He found that the court had relied on expert opinion without first resolving the disputed facts and that a number of professionals involved in the case shared responsibility for those failures.

It was for that reason that the earlier findings were set aside and could no longer be relied upon.

The guidance following Re Y
The judgment provides important guidance for parents and practitioners alike.

The key message is simple: facts must come first. Before a court can properly assess allegations of alienating behaviour, it must understand the factual context, including any allegations of domestic abuse. Expert evidence can assist the court, but it cannot replace the court’s role as the decision-maker.

Practical lessons for parents in children’s cases
Allegations of parental alienation should not be determined without first establishing the facts.
Domestic abuse allegations must be properly investigated.
Experts assist the court; they do not decide the outcome.
Procedural mistakes can have profound and long-lasting consequences for children and parents.
Re Y highlights the critical importance of following the correct process in children’s proceedings. It is a powerful reminder that fairness, proper evidence and careful fact-finding must be at the heart of family justice.

Need advice about a Children Law matter?
If you are experiencing difficulties resolving arrangements for your children, are facing allegations of parental alienation, domestic abuse or coercive control, or are concerned that decisions are being made without the full facts being understood, obtaining specialist legal advice at an early stage can make a significant difference.

Saika Alam, Family Law Solicitor at Branch Austin McCormick LLP, is known for her pragmatic, child-focused and compassionate approach. She works closely with parents to find constructive solutions wherever possible, while remaining a strong and effective advocate when court proceedings become necessary.

Branch Austin McCormick also partner with and offer access to a select range of wraparound support services, including counsellors, therapists and parenting specialists who can help families navigate the emotional and practical challenges that often accompany children proceedings.

For confidential advice about any children law issue, contact Saika Alam at [email protected] or on her direct telephone number at 020 7851 0110.

← Back to Insights