A High Court judge sitting in the Family Court in Newcastle has given judgment on a mother's application to set aside 2020 findings that she alienated her daughter from her father, brought under a 2026 decision on alienating behaviour.
Key facts
- Who: The mother, father and child in this anonymised case.
- From: 4 September 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: SB (A Child) (Alienating Behaviour: Application to Reopen Findings), Re [2026] EWFC 264
In Re SB (A Child) [2026] EWFC 264, handed down on 4 September 2026 in the Family Court at Newcastle upon Tyne, HHJ Stephen Smith, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dealt with a mother's application to set aside earlier findings that she had alienated her daughter, SB, against her father. The case is anonymised.
Background
In a judgment dated 14 December 2020, HHJ Mitchell, sitting in the Family Court at Middlesbrough, found that the mother had alienated SB, then a primary school child, against her father. The judge transferred SB to the father's care with immediate effect. SB had until then resisted contact with him.
The parents' relationship ended in 2015, and a shared care arrangement was made that year. In 2019 the father applied to vary it after the mother restricted his contact. A fact-finding hearing in June 2020 looked at two allegations about the father: pushing SB's head into a pillow, and pulling away in a car before her seatbelt was fastened. The judge found the pillow incident involved excessive force and the seatbelt incident was careless but not intentional. She did not treat either as a reason to restrict contact.
The alienation findings drew on reports from the Children's Guardian at the time and from a forensic psychologist appointed as an expert. The psychologist expressed concern that the mother may have been alienating SB, and the guardian's reports referred to "alienating behaviours".
SB, now a teenager, still lives with her father and has only indirect contact with her mother. The court was told she is thriving in his care.
The questions
The mother applied under Part 18 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. She relied on Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38, which considered how allegations of "parental alienation" should now be approached. That approach is based on Family Justice Council guidance on a child's unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent.
HHJ Stephen Smith identified two main issues:
- whether the court should retrospectively redetermine the admissibility of the guardian's and the expert's evidence; and
- whether to reopen the 2020 findings, under the established approach in Re E (Children: Reopening Findings of Fact) [2019] EWCA Civ 1447 and Re CTD (A Child: Rehearing) [2020] EWCA Civ 1316.
The mother argued that parental alienation is not a symptom capable of diagnosis but a process of manipulation of a child by one parent against the other, so the earlier approach could not now be sustained. She said setting the findings aside would allow direct work with SB and might help restore SB's relationship with her.
The father took a neutral position on the application, questioning the value of reopening issues nearly six years after they were decided. SB's current guardian was also neutral, saying the earlier approach may "require scrutiny" while focusing on SB's welfare needs.
What this means for parents
This judgment shows how one court was asked to look again at alienation findings made in 2020, before the approach in Re Y and the Family Justice Council guidance. The application raised questions about the admissibility of earlier guardian and expert evidence and about reopening findings of fact. Parents whose own cases involve earlier findings should read the full judgment and get advice before any deadline passes.
Sources
- SB (A Child) (Alienating Behaviour: Application to Reopen Findings), Re [2026] EWFC 264, Family Court (Newcastle upon Tyne), 4 September 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/264