Re Y (2026): A Modern Approach to Parental Alienation and Unregulated Experts

The recent decision in Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38 marks a significant moment for families affected by findings of parental alienation. The judgment was delivered by the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane. It highlights systemic failings across multiple agencies, including Cafcass, the children’s solicitor, the local authority and even the court itself.

The Role of Expert Evidence in Re Y

A central focus of the case was the role of an unregulated expert psychologist, whose evidence in 2019 led to serious findings that the mother had emotionally harmed the children and alienated them from their father.

The expert Ms Gill was not a chartered psychologist, not HCPC registered, and did not hold a clinical practice. Whilst in 2019 this was acceptable, the family court now has concerns about its reliance on unregulated experts.

Changes in the Legal Approach Since 2019

Since 2019, the legal landscape has evolved. In Re Y, the court:

Relied on the Family Justice Council’s 2024 guidance (on responding to a child’s resistance or refusal to see a parent) that it is for the court, not an expert, to make findings of alienating behaviours.
Confirmed that there is no evidential basis for “parental alienation syndrome”.
Confirmed that courts must first consider any relevant allegations of domestic abuse before making findings about alienating behaviour.

In Re Y, the court concluded that the findings made in 2019 had no solid foundation. Given neither parent sought to re‑litigate the issue, the court proceeded on the basis that Ms Gill’s evidence would not be taken into account in any future decisions.

What Re Y Means for Families

Re Y is a stark reminder of the significant changes in legal principles and guidance in this area of law.

Therefore, if you have had findings made against you based on evidence from an unregulated expert, you may be able to challenge them.