Cambridge Family Law Practice

A recently-published Family Court decision has sent a clear message about two important issues in children cases:

1. the appointment of psychologists in court proceedings, and
2. how courts should deal with allegations of “alienating behaviour”.

In Re Y (Experts and alienating behaviour: the modern approach) [2026] EWFC 38, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said that courts should not usually allow evidence from a psychologist unless that person is properly regulated or professionally recognised.
The judgment also makes clear that when one parent says the other has turned a child against them (i.e. is alleging ‘alienating behaviours’), the court must proceed carefully and in the right order. In particular, if there are also allegations of domestic abuse, those allegations must be looked at first.

The case involved earlier findings made in 2019 that a mother had alienated her children from their father. Those findings were based on evidence from a psychologist who was not registered with the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and was not chartered by the British Psychological Society (BPS). After those findings were made, the children moved to live with their father and had no contact with their mother for five years.

In 2026, Sir Andrew McFarlane decided that the earlier process had gone badly wrong. He set aside the findings against the mother, and emphasised several important points:

1. Courts should usually only instruct properly recognised psychologists
The court said that a psychologist should not normally be instructed unless they are:
• registered by a relevant statutory body, or
• chartered by the British Psychological Society.
In practice, this means the court should be checking whether the expert has proper professional status before appointing them.
The judgment says that if the court ever allows someone who is neither regulated nor chartered to act as a psychologist, there must be a clear reason for doing so, and that reason should be explained briefly in a judgment.
The court also said that the expert should be asked whether they hold an HCPC protected title before they are appointed.

2. Alienating behaviour is not a diagnosis for a psychologist to make
Deciding whether alienating behaviour has happened is a question of fact for the judge, not a medical or psychological diagnosis to be made by an expert.
A psychologist may be able to help the court understand family dynamics, behaviour, or the child’s presentation, but the ultimate question—has one parent wrongly influenced the child against the other?—is one for the court, based on the evidence.

3. The court must decide the facts before relying on expert opinion
The President said the judge in the earlier case failed to follow a basic principle: work out the factual picture first. This matters because expert evidence should not replace the court’s own job of deciding what actually happened. If there are serious allegations—especially allegations of domestic abuse—the court must first determine those issues. Only then can it fairly consider whether a child’s resistance to a parent is a justified response to abusive or harmful behaviour, or the result of alienating behaviour by the other parent.

Kathryn Evans, one of the partners here at Cambridge Family Law Practice, comments: “In this case, the findings led to a major change in the children’s lives, including the loss of contact with their mother for years. The President described the situation as showing a systemic failure by all the agencies involved, including CAFCASS, the children’s solicitor, the local authority, and the court. That is a striking criticism. The judgment is a reminder for all that expert evidence can be very influential, and the court must be careful about who is appointed as an expert. Ultimately, labels should never replace proper fact-finding.

Professionals working in this field await possible further restrictions to the use of unregulated experts off the back of the 2025 consultation on changes to the Family Procedure Rules.”