In a series of poignant letters to the Guardian, readers and professionals have voiced deep concerns over the state of the UK's family court system, particularly in child custody cases. The discussion was sparked by Lara Feigel's account of divorce and the adversarial nature of proceedings, highlighting a system many argue is failing families.
The Adversarial System Under Fire
Lara Feigel's powerful narrative underscores the impact of what she describes as a 'win/lose' adjudication model in family courts. This adversarial framework, critics contend, is tailor-made to exacerbate conflict between separating parents, often destroying any potential for negotiated co-parental agreements. Instead of fostering collaboration, the system heightens tensions, leaving children caught squarely in the middle of parental disputes.
Edward Kruk, President of the International Council on Shared Parenting, argues that the best laws are those which limit judicial discretion, especially in family law where children's welfare is paramount. He points to a viable alternative: a legal presumption of equal parenting, which could be rebutted in cases of family violence. This model, he suggests, reduces the harms of adversarial resolution by maintaining children's relationships with both parents and extended family, while also cutting down on inter-parental conflict and preventing first-time violence.
The Stalled Push for Reform
Despite family courts frequently invoking the 'best interests of the child' principle, meaningful law reform remains elusive in the UK and beyond. Kruk emphasises that what is missing is the political will to enact legislative changes based on reliable scientific evidence supporting shared parenting and a child-focused approach. The adversarial system, he warns, often becomes a forum for the weaponisation of allegations such as parental alienation and family violence, rather than protecting genuine victims.
He stresses that family violence should be treated as a criminal matter and handled by criminal courts, rather than leaving it to family courts to determine innocence or guilt in a win/lose scenario. The need for dialogue among activists in shared parenting and family violence fields is vital, as ideological polarisation currently thwarts reform efforts. Kruk asserts that when it comes to post-separation parenting, the interests of mothers and fathers overlap, and the cruelty of the current system is to blame for many tragic outcomes.
Concerns Over 'Alienation' Terminology
Adding to the critique, Tom Warnecke, General Secretary of the European Association for Psychotherapy, expresses concern that the term 'alienation' is still in use in custody family court contexts. He argues that children are often labelled as 'alienated' by self-appointed experts, a practice that effectively silences their voices, experiences, and choices. Warnecke warns that 'parental alienation' labels, and any descriptive variations, usually aim to continue controlling behaviours by an abusive or controlling parent.
Referencing 2018 guidelines published by the European Association for Psychotherapy, Warnecke clarifies how unscientific conceptions of 'parental alienation' may facilitate further victimisation, pathologisation, or even violence towards vulnerable individuals. He hopes that more family courts will act to improve protection for the most vulnerable parties, particularly children trapped in such custody battles.
A Counterpoint on Systemic Critique
Not all responses are wholly critical of the system. One reader, who chose to remain anonymous, acknowledges the emotional strain of family court proceedings but cautions against turning a painful personal outcome into a wholesale critique. Currently protecting their son from a high-conflict situation, this reader understands the difficulties involved but points out that family courts are not designed to validate adults' narratives. Instead, they must make difficult decisions in circumstances already shaped by parental choices.
The reader argues that tragic custody outcomes do not necessarily demonstrate institutional bias. Courts are often forced to choose between imperfect options, prioritising stability over parental preference. They suggest that parents themselves create the conditions in which the court must operate, and framing family courts as inherently unjust may be counterproductive. Such a discourse could encourage grievance rather than reflection in situations where cooperation and accountability are paramount for children's long-term welfare.
The Path Forward
The letters collectively paint a picture of a family court system at a crossroads. While there is agreement on the need for reform, opinions vary on the extent of systemic failure and the best way forward. Key themes emerge: the harmful effects of adversarial litigation, the controversial use of 'alienation' terminology, and the urgent call for legislative changes based on evidence and child welfare.
As Edward Kruk concludes, the time has come for a long-needed alliance toward reform in the right direction. This dialogue, sparked by personal accounts and expert insights, underscores the life-and-death stakes involved in child custody cases and the pressing need for a more compassionate, collaborative approach in the UK's family courts.
