Her name is Reem Alsalem appointed in 2021 for a three-year term, and she has produced a report urging the United Nations to urge member states to legislate to ban the use of ‘parental alienation’ theory in all its guises on the grounds that it is not ‘in the best interests of the child’. She claims PA is ‘an unfounded and unscientific concept which is highly gendered’.  LINK

Karen Woodall has written of her objections to the UN  LINK, and like FNF we want to see the evidence. Karen goes further in her critique by questioning that ALsalem’s assertion that alienation is a ‘pseudo-concept’ only used to further abuse of victims from the safety of a family court is, in the absence of evidence, no more than hearsay. 

FNF have also written our objections to this report. You can find our report by clicking the title of the article and scrolling down the main website. 

Ms Rita French, United Kingdom representative on the UN Human Rights Council 

Dear Rita, if I may call you that.  

Custody, violence against women and violence against children, Report of Special Rapporteur dated 13 April 2023 

Greetings and Best Wishes 

This is to raise concerns about this report with you, and to ask your advice on the current position, on your stance and what can be done.  

It is on behalf of Both Parents Matter (also called Families Need Fathers) together with 13 other family and gender equality within families' charities and support organisations. We (BPM/FNF) are the respected and respectable (until UK ‘austerity’ government funded) charity concerned with the following niche. That, in accordance with the UNCRC, children whose parents live apart should retain direct and regular contact with both their parents, unless that would be against their welfare.  

Our concern is with the report of Reem Alsalem to the 53rd session of the Human Rights Council ‘…. with a focus on the abuse of the term ‘parental alienation’ and similar pseudo-concepts’. 

‘Parental alienation’ is an elastic term questionable in some of its iterations. The central issue is this. The more attention – and rightly – is given to the views of children in legal proceedings about custody and the sharing of parenting time, the greater are the advantages, in conflict situations, to a parent whose children express a wish not to see the parent with whom they do not live, or even see. There is a continuum. At the worst end, coaching and ever occasionally threats, to, the other end, the children simply picking up what would please (usually) their mother. *  

It is the duty of the courts and other agencies in this situation, to enquire about the children’s wishes, but also to explore what may lie behind them. Whether their wishes are well-founded, for example in there having been ill-treated, or ‘situational’ in that they arise from their mother’s wishes. They will, of course, in most cases, naturally and properly, love and trust her*. But perhaps, if their father* is a decent parent and person, they should still be allowed a relationship with him? 

Coming to Ms Alsalem’s report. The council is of course entitled to appoint and pay attention to a Rapporteur. They are entitled to expect an objective and balanced report. In which the recommendations, even if robust, are based on a fair hearing having been given to the views of the various parties, and their having had proper attention. Very often, especially in situations that are as variable and complex as parenting disputes are, it will allow for exceptions, be nuanced, have caveats etc. 

*(If the sex/gender situation is reversed, so is the capacity to influence) 

You may wish to (re-)read the report and ask yourself whether this had taken place. Or whether it is an attempt to capture the Council for a very crude perspective. One in which there appears to be no issue involved except fathers abusing their ex-partners and children. Yes, in the tens of thousands of disputed parenting cases (in the UK) there will be examples of that. But other possibilities need to be allowed for!  

Some references to indicate that ‘Parental Alienation’ may rightly be taken seriously are cited below. 

Thank you for reading, and we look forward to hearing from you in response.  

Yours sincerely 

John Baker, Trustee on behalf of our group dealing with international issues and others. 

03.09.2023 

address for correspondence 

john.baker.trustee@fnf.org.uk 

Selected references:  

Published Judgement; High Court of Justice, Mr Justice Keehan:  Re A and B (Children:  ‘Parental Alienation’) (no.5) 27.07.2023. Case no: ZC18P01363. Neutral citation number [2023] EWHC 1864 (Fam) 

and from the state social work agency charged with advising the courts on child welfare (CAFCASS) LINK

What do you think?

Send us feedback!