Why Children Are Removed After Abuse Disclosures (And What Needs to Change)

**Content warning: this episode contains discussion of domestic and sexual abuse and child removal see below for support links***

This is the second in a two-part series, produced in partnership with the non-profit organisation Right to Equality, where we look into the shocking subject of child removal in private family proceedings in England and Wales. 

Today we dive deeper into how these cases have arisen in our family justice system and  deep dive into the impact of experts in these cases. 

I’m joined by Dr Adrienne Barnett, Reader in Law at Brunel University of London and Co-Director of Right to Equality, and; 

Natalie Page, advocate, campaigner and Director of Survivor Family Network and author of a soon to be released book “The System Is The Weapon”. 

To learn more about the work of Right to Equality and read real life reporting from the family courts visit: www.righttoequality.org 

Support

• I provide free weekly online group support sessions. You can find more about the Divorce Coach sessions here.
• For victims and survivors of abuse in England and Wales information on your legal options is available via: www.flows.org.uk and find out about support via he 24 hour domestic abuse helpline or via the 24 hour sexual violence helpline.
• For safe parents of children who have disclosed child sexual abuse help is available via We Stand.   
• For more information and resources, see my website available here: https://saradavison.com/

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

Welcome to the Heartbreak to Happiness Show with Sarah Davison. If you're struggling with a breakup and you feel shocked, angry, betrayed, devastated, or sad and alone, then this podcast is for you. Best-selling author and award-winning host, Sarah Davidson, shares how you two can get on with your life to heal, grow, and move from heartbreak to happiness.

SPEAKER_01 0:26

Being separated from your child is trauma. I mean, there's no other word. It's probably the worst cruelty that we can inflict on a parent, isn't it? Surely, to be separated from your child on, as you've got the bogus uh parental alienation idea. It's just medieval, and I just it's honestly is I think for a lot of people, I know when I first heard the concept, I just couldn't believe this was actually happening. It really doesn't seem like it's even possible.

SPEAKER_02 0:55

It does happen, um, and like I said, it shouldn't happen. Um, unfortunately, I think it is one of the greatest cruelties you can inflict on another person. If you've never heard the sound that comes from a mother who is having her children ripped from her arms, and I hope you never will. Um those screams, wails, sobs that will stick with me from witnessing it forever.

SPEAKER_00 1:27

Here's your host, Sarah Davison.

SPEAKER_01 1:33

Welcome back to the show. Now, this is a very special episode. It is part two of a two-part series. So if you haven't listened to the previous one, we recommend you go back and listen to that one first. We are talking about child removal in private family law proceedings. Now, this is a tough subject. It's a tough subject for me. It's a tough subject for a lot of people I know, and I know that a lot of you listening, watching might find this difficult. Please know you're not alone. If it does bring up any difficult emotions, I have packed the show notes full of as much support and help as I can. Plus, my online free support groups are still always there. So you can jump on those if you do need some help and guidance. Okay, so please check that out. We are going to dive in today to looking at child removal. And I really want to get under the hood because I believe this is the biggest national scandal that we don't know about that's happening every day in the family court system. These episodes are done in collaboration with Rights to Equality. So thank you to them for being part of today. We are going to be discussing some distressing content. We are going to be talking about domestic abuse, we are going to be talking about child removal, and we are talking about sexual abuse in this episode as well. So please again do refer to the support notes if you need some help. Okay, I want to introduce my guests today because I have two phenomenal guests with me. They are personal friends of mine. I've known them for a very long time, and I am so honoured that they've come to the studio to record with me today. So we have Dr. Adrienne Barnett, who's reader in law at Brunel University of London and co-director to Write to Equality. And we also have Natalie Page, who is an advocate, campaigner, and director of Survivor Family Network. Two powerhouses in this room. So I'm super excited. I'm going to start with an anonymous testimony from one mum who's been through child removal and was reliving this experience that she's had in a contact centre. Now, before I read that, I'm just going to turn to you, Adrienne. For those people listening who don't know what a contact centre is, what is it?

SPEAKER_03 3:55

So a contact centre is a place, it might be an informal place like a church hall or more formally a local authority hall, where a parent who is going through family court proceedings or has been through them can have contact with their child on a regular basis. So it might be more informally supported by volunteers or more formally supported. And that's what a contact centre is.

SPEAKER_01 4:22

Okay. All right, so I wanted to address that to give you some context. So one moment that always haunts me was when I was having supervised contact with my kids just before Christmas. I was wearing a Christmas jumper and had put glitter on my face to try and make it as festive as possible for the kids, despite how distressing it all was. I went to the toilet before my contact session started, and as I walked through the door, I came face to face with another mum walking out of the toilet, going back to her kids in her session. She was also wearing a Christmas jumper and glitter. Her eyes were full of tears. She was clearly fighting to hold them back. I asked, Are you okay? And our eyes met and she said, No, are you? And I said, No. And we both looked at each other, trying so hard to keep it together in this impossibly cruel situation. And such a moment of understanding and compassion passed between us, silently acknowledging how trapped we both were, and how, although neither of us were okay, there was nothing we could do apart from to put on a brave face and a smile for our kids and step back into our sessions as the fun mums that our kids needed, no matter how much our hearts were breaking. This is the second part of this series, and again, another real life example of the trauma that is going on in the family court system. Now, Nattie, you've been advocating, you've been campaigning for a long time alongside survivors. I think a lot of us will find it hard to think this is actually happening, that this actually happens today. Most people won't have heard of it. They'll probably think, is this really true? Is this like extreme? You know, in your experience, is this kind of scene in the family contact centre a familiar scene for you? Sadly, it is a familiar scene.

SPEAKER_02 6:23

And um, and the reason I campaign is because it shouldn't be. Um, mothers are separated from their children, um, in my view, unlawfully in the family courts, um, usually on the basis of um so-called parental alienation um allegations. And once that's been alleged and found by the courts, um, it can begin um a long journey for these mums where they aren't able to spend any normal time with their children at home, they have to go to a centre and everything's sterile and supervised and expensive as well. Very expensive.

SPEAKER_01 7:06

Expensive.

SPEAKER_02 7:06

Yeah, extremely expensive for these mums. They have to pay to uh very often have to pay to have contact with their children hundreds and hundreds of pounds to get to visit these centres.

SPEAKER_01 7:16

So it's not ordered and then paid for, they have to actually personally pay for that themselves.

SPEAKER_02 7:21

Yeah, regardless of whether they're on a low income or or not. Um they these mothers will be put in a position where they are forced to see their children in a contact centre rather than at home, which is where their preference would be. Um, and they have to pay for that privilege um whilst the court has removed those children on the basis of a bogus theory.

SPEAKER_01 7:43

I just we're talking about this, and I think it's really important to bring it back to the reality that this is trauma. Being separated from your child is trauma. I mean, there's no other word. It's probably the worst cruelty that we could inflict on a parent, isn't it? Surely, to be separated from your child on, as you've got the bogus uh parental alienation idea. It's just medieval, and I just it's honestly is I think for a lot of people, I know when I first heard the concept, I just couldn't believe this was actually happening. It really doesn't seem like it's even possible.

SPEAKER_02 8:18

It does happen, um, and like I said, it shouldn't happen. Um, unfortunately, I think it is one of the greatest cruelties you can inflict on another person if you've never heard the sound that comes from a mother who is having her children ripped from her arms, and I hope you never will. Um th those screams, wails, sobs will stick with me from witnessing it for forever. And I I I don't know how anyone can do this to another mother in good conscience. We wouldn't do it to a nursing cat with kittens, um, but we're doing it to human mothers and children.

SPEAKER_01 9:03

I mean, I mean I find this topic really difficult to talk about, but it's really needed. Um, Adrienne, if I turn to you, some people listening will be thinking, gosh, you know, I'm frightened this could happen to me. Yeah, is this happening on a big scale? Tell us, is this common that people are being removed from their parents?

SPEAKER_03 9:21

Well, you know, I was in practice at the bar for many years as a family law barrister, and I left the bar, um, left practice to go into full-time academia at the end of 2013. Up until that point, one would hardly ever see any children removed from their primary carer, usually the mother, in private law. I probably in 25 years' practice at the bar, I could count on the fingers of one hand how many times I experienced this happening, and usually it was a very unusual case. Um now there is no official data on how often this happens. We we simply don't know. The the courts don't keep data like this on a uh you know on a regular accessible basis. But um I'm doing a research project at the moment where I've got 24 uh mothers who we've interviewed. Um 12 of them have had their children removed from their care. So 50%. 50%, yes. We hadn't hadn't gone out to look for mothers who'd had their children removed, but that is how it it turned out. Um but because we don't know how how prevalent this this is, um that's why Right to Equality and Survivor Family Network launched a survey last year in the autumn. Uh and of the 217 mothers who completed the survey, they had in total between them 342 children removed from their care.

SPEAKER_01 11:03

342 children had been removed. So we're not just talking 50% of time with dad, 50% with mum, we're talking removed from primary carer.

SPEAKER_03 11:14

Removed from primary carer. By that I mean average age of the child at age of removal was eight years. Uh and the vast majority of the mothers, um, nearly nearly 97% of them had raised allegations of abuse during the proceedings.

SPEAKER_01 11:34

Before the children were removed?

SPEAKER_03 11:36

Before the children were removed in the survey. So that's a extraordinarily high. Most of that was domestic abuse, but there were mothers that also raised child physical abuse, child sexual abuse. Can I just say, just to reassure any mothers who may be listening, that we need to get a bit of perspective on it. Um so there are 55,000 odd uh child removal uh child arrangements cases applied for every year that go through the courts.

SPEAKER_01 12:12

So by that you mean just your average of you're going through a breakup with the other parent and you're trying to work out the arrangements for the children.

SPEAKER_03 12:21

And most of those don't even go to a contested hearing. So when you look at these figures on child removal, it is worrying, but it is still a small minority of cases overall. So I just wanted to put that in perspective in case anyone listening is getting starting to get really worried.

SPEAKER_01 12:40

Yeah, I understand that. And you know, this is not to cause alarm, it's to raise awareness that this is happening to certain people and shouldn't be happening at all. So why then do you think it is happening, Adrienne?

SPEAKER_03 12:53

Well, there's a number of interlinked reasons, I think, but it all stems back to this strong pro-contact culture that we have in the family courts, this long history of pro-contact case law. Now, people may be wondering what is the pro-contact culture? What do I mean by that? What I mean by that is that the family courts very strongly promote ongoing relationships between children and both of their parents following parental separation.

SPEAKER_01 13:27

Which is healthy, right? It's what you would want, I guess, right?

SPEAKER_03 13:31

Absolutely. And uh anyone listening may think, well, what is wrong with that? The higher courts will, you know, repeatedly emphasise that this should be cogent, compelling reasons not to allow contact, and that ordering no contact is a last resort. Right. Now, added to this, we have had since 2014, so for the last sort of 11, 12 years, a statutory presumption of parental involvement. Now, this is not a long-standing legislative principle. It was added to the Children Act 1989, which is the legislation that governs this whole area, um, by the UK government in 2014, even though there was very little support for it. Um, and I can explain what the presumption is. Yes, please, yeah. So in section one, subsection two of the Children Act, it says that involvement of a parent in a child's life, it is presumed, will further the child's welfare so long as that parent can be involved in the way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm. It is also presumed that a parent's involvement will not put a child at risk of harm unless there's evidence to the contrary. Now, again, one may be saying, what is wrong with that? Why shouldn't there be a presumption? What we have to bear in mind is the huge prevalence of domestic abuse, primarily and other risks of harm in these cases. Remember that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner's recent report found 87% of cases in a systematic case file review, evidence of domestic abuse. So all these cases where the courts are emphasizing the importance of contact and maintaining relationships with the non-resident parent, usually the father, are most of them domestic abuse cases. Wow. It is, it is. And the problem is because of the strong pro-contact culture, it means that the courts tend to minimize domestic abuse, they ignore it, they say it's completely irrelevant to children's welfare.

SPEAKER_01 15:53

Because they're saying that it's better for children to have both parents and access to both parents at any cost, then, really, is what they're saying.

SPEAKER_03 15:59

Yes, in fact, it's been known as contact at all costs. Wow. And that's what it is. And it's exacerbated by the facts that the judges, the magistrates, uh, the lawyers, the prof other professionals, Kafka, they don't really understand domestic abuse and child sexual abuse. They just don't get it. And so they just think that the allegations being raised are not that serious, and it's just the, you know, nothing to do with children's contact. And because of all of that, there's this general bias against mothers in the family courts. Very often they're not believed. As soon as they raise allegations and the father says, it's not true, it didn't happen, then it's assumption she's lying. Um if mothers do raise concerns about contact, then the court will view them as being obstructive and awkward and difficult and hostile. Most importantly, though, as we know, I think from the first podcast, um because of this whole background, this is happening, these child removals, because of this rise in the weaponization of so-called parental alienation, and the experts who push this belief system. Um and invariably recommend child removal. But of course, so do some social workers, so does Kafkas. But it's this stronghold of the parental alienation belief system that has really led to it.

SPEAKER_01 17:39

We're gonna come to the experts. There's a there's a lot to uncover on that. I I do want to touch on something you said there, though, that this is also for cases where there's child sexual abuse as well. Because I think a lot of people are gonna say, well, of course, they're not going to hand a child over to uh an abuser where there's known sexual abuse. But what you're saying is this happens.

SPEAKER_03 18:00

It does happen, and actually raising child sexual abuse is probably, and I hate to say it, the most dangerous thing for um a mother and children uh in the family court. No way. Because the courts are so sceptical, they simply don't believe it. Um now, what we know um from a uh government-commissioned national review into child sexual abuse in the family environment, which was in 2024, um that found evidence that children were being transferred to reside with sex offenders by the family courts. And we also know that sexual abuse in the family is one of the most common forms of child abuse, and that it's usually a parent or parental figure who's the most common perpetrator. And yet the family courts have great difficulty believing that that father in front of them in the courtroom is actually a child sexual abuser. Um, and they don't believe children. You know, you'll get judges saying that a child is a poor historian and that they've got implanted memories when this is nothing to do with memories. This is something that's been happening and is happening to a child.

SPEAKER_01 19:25

So what you're saying there is that children are reporting this and saying that there is sexual abuse in their own words, I guess, because they're not going to use that, those words, but um, and the adults are saying, no, then they're making it up. It's a figment of their imagination.

SPEAKER_03 19:43

They're saying the children are uh imagining it, or more likely that the mother has implanted these ideas in the child, that uh it's uh it's a uh mother who's vengeful or delusional, maybe she's believes it and she's just delusional, and is somehow making these children believe that they have been sexually abused. And when you think about it, this way of looking at child sexual abuse most closely resembles the way Richard Gardner, you know, the original architect of parental alienation syndrome, his attitude to child sexual abuse, and his response to it.

SPEAKER_01 20:24

Now we didn't touch on Richard Gardner in the first episode, so just tell us a little bit about him. I don't want to dedicate any time to him, but let's just understand. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 20:34

So Richard Gardner was uh uh uh an expert psychologist in the United States in the 1980s who devised this idea of parental alienation syndrome. And it started off when he said that most, the vast majority of child sexual abuse allegations in the family courts are not true. They have been implanted in the minds of children by their vengeful and angry mothers. Right.

SPEAKER_01 21:02

So this was his idea.

SPEAKER_03 21:03

His idea. Right. And he also, in fact, did not think there was that much wrong with child sexual abuse. He said it's society that has created a problem about adults having sex with children. So he had some very odd ideas, uh, and he was discredited in the United States by the 1990s. But if you look at the way our courts are dealing with child sexual abuse, it really sounds a lot like the way Richard Gardiner uh approached it.

SPEAKER_01 21:35

Wow, absolutely. I mean using the same terminology that he created.

SPEAKER_03 21:39

Exactly, right, exactly. And and these kind of claims are supported by these so-called experts who subscribe to parental alienation in our family courts. Wow.

SPEAKER_01 21:54

I mean, this is it's just horrific. I mean, it's just horrific. Natie, uh, we were talking. Talking a little bit about regulated and unregulated experts in the first episode, and how a lot of them, um, and the experts being the people who are sort of assessing the children and the mother and the situation to see what happens in that case and then reporting back to the courts. So a lot of them were unregulated. Can you talk to that and explain the difference between regulated and unregulated? We did touch on that slightly, but what's your opinion of that?

SPEAKER_02 22:28

Um, well, my opinion um about the difference between um regulated and unregulated experts um might be surprising to some because um I think most people are aware now that an unregulated expert might be a dangerous thing in your case, because if anything goes wrong and you've got no recourse, nowhere to complain to, um, you know, there's essentially nothing that you can do. Um, so the flip side of that is that a regulated expert therefore must be safe because they are regulated and would presumably adhere to professional standards like staying away from junk science like parental alienation theory. However, what we're finding is that there appears to be very little difference between the regulated experts and the unregulated experts in the courtrooms, thanks to uh a nice little loophole that they're all benefiting from at the moment, which I believe we need to close. When they are regulated by a professional body such as the HCPC, um whatever they say in the courtroom cannot be complained about. Whatever they rely on in that court hearing cannot be brought to the regulator to complain about. So they can get away with saying anything that they want to, whether it has clinical or scientific or any evidential basis to it, or not, they can say it in the courtroom with no comeback and no complaint. And and these mums are finding themselves in this position where a lot of these experts are recommending that their children must be immediately and summarily removed from their care for no good reason, um, on the basis of a theory that's used in the courtroom that they can not go anywhere to complain about. There's nowhere to go. Whether there's a rep if there's a regulated expert, they can complain to the HCPC. We I did a whole group of complaints for a lot of mums a few years ago when I was looking at these issues to try and see what could be done, um, you know, to improve practice, especially with the clinical fields. And unfortunately, what we found is that once the complaint, the complaint um process has started, it very quickly stops because anything that is said in the courtroom cannot be subject to a complaint. So essentially, there is no difference between a regulated and an unregulated expert in the courtroom. They are all as good as unregulated.

SPEAKER_01 25:04

So, Nasi, I just want to go back a little bit to what is the job of one of these experts? Because most people would assume that if you're an expert in the family court, you're being brought in to write a report on, you know, serious issue, like where should the child spend time with which parent and how much, that they would be good people, they they were act with integrity, they want to do the right thing by the child, they've got the child's best interests at heart and you know they want to look at the situation, assess it fairly. From what we're talking about here, doesn't seem to be the case. So, what in some cases? So, tell me what is the job of an expert? What do they come in to do and how does that work sort of pan out? Hey, Sarah here. I just wanted to jump in because I know this episode is going to be a little bit hard-hitting for some of you, understandably so. It is for me to do check out the support we've put together in the show notes. You're not alone, there is help there, and if you know somebody else that needs it, do refer them to those support groups and helplines as well. Really important, you know, you're not alone, this isn't your fault, and there are people there who understand it, have walked in your shoes and really want to support you. Right, let's get back to the episode. Tell me, what is the job of an expert? What do they come in to do and how does that work, sort of pan out?

SPEAKER_02 26:22

Well, in the context of the family court, an expert is usually called in when a judge needs a little bit of help to make a decision. Um, and essentially they need someone to spend some time with the family and to understand the issues and then report back to the court to allow the court to make a more informed decision. So that's the purpose and the role of an expert. They're most often a psychologist or psychiatrist or similar clinician, therapist, um, who who would conduct that type of work. However, with the loopholes being as they are, um the risk of bad practice is there because the loopholes are there to that that means that they can get away with it.

SPEAKER_01 27:06

So if there is a complaint to be made then, so say right, we're not happy with something that's happened, what is the process then and how does that pan out for people that are upset with what's happened to them?

SPEAKER_02 27:17

Well, with a regulated expert, the um process would be to write to the um to the expert's regulator, which may be the HCPC, but they would then investigate that complaint. And as I said, what we've often found is that when we're talking about what's been said in the courtroom, but that's where the complaint stops and the HCPC steps away and says, we can't look at this because these are private family court proceedings.

SPEAKER_01 27:45

Wow. Okay. And then with the unregulated, you there's nothing you can do.

SPEAKER_02 27:49

There's nothing you can do, there is no one to complain to. If they're unregulated, there is no regulator to go to you when something's gone wrong. But essentially, when they're regulated, the regulator is toothless and unable to deal with the complaint. Um, so essentially, all of them may as well be unregulated. And I think that that is a really urgent task for the family justice system to close that loophole immediately.

SPEAKER_01 28:18

Yeah, I mean, I suppose people might be thinking, well, if I'd gone to a regulated expert, it might have been better, or you know, is that the better choice? But what you're saying is there's no comeback, no way to complain. But at that point, you know, there's already damage done, I guess, if you're in the complaint process. Adrienne, coming back to you, um, we've heard that in the cases of child removals, children and mothers might be expected to undergo therapy. Um, what role do these therapists play?

SPEAKER_03 28:46

Yeah, so this is a sort of another aspect of the world of experts, and we focus a lot on the experts, the regulated and the unregulated, but there's also this rather shadowy world of therapists who could be anyone. Um, they could be psychotherapists or counsellors, um, but very often the way they get involved is that, say, a court-appointed parental alienation expert will recommend, uh, for example, the child must be removed from the mother because they've been alienated, and then that child must have reunification therapy. Reunification. Reunification therapy, some kind of therapy to make the child want to be with and live with or have a relationship with their father.

SPEAKER_01 29:43

With the parent that they're resistant to spending time with.

SPEAKER_03 29:46

Yeah. It's social engineering, really. Right. The idea. Okay. Um, this is something which is is not the kind of therapy that that tends to get recommended. It's got names like space therapy or schematherapy or um, I can't remember the name was, it sounded like something like drowning therapy or something, you know, immersive type. Right. Um and they are not scientifically supported. Uh, they can be harmful to children, and some uh states in the US, through a brilliant federal law called Cadence Law, have banned reunification therapy just like this. And yet, these experts are recommending it in this country. So it's happening.

SPEAKER_01 30:37

So just so I guess if if a child doesn't want to see a parent, you probably want to explore that. Don't you want to just sort of see why it is that they don't? So some form of conversation with the child, some sort of, I guess if you want to call it therapy or whatever, might be useful to sort of address what the issue is. What's the difference between that and what you're talking about?

SPEAKER_03 30:56

What I'm talking about is that you will have already had a parental alienation court-appointed expert decide that there has been parental alienation, and then they will recommend a therapy to fix it. Ah, okay. That's that's that kind of classic way. But also, they are also recommend that the mother usually has to have therapy to stop being alienating, and that she shouldn't very often that she shouldn't have any contact with the child until she's had the therapy. And on top of it all, before I explain what the problem is with that, that in some cases these the experts will recommend either themselves to do the therapy or uh an associated um uh therapist, for example, maybe in in the same organization they work for, the same company, or a related company. Now they are not supposed to do this. There is guidance and regulation and so on from the president of the family division and the family justice council, that they're not supposed to do that, but they do.

SPEAKER_01 32:09

So there's the the parental alienation expert, so-called, comes in and they look at the situation and then they make a recommendation that therapy is needed. You said for the child and the mother, you didn't mention the father.

SPEAKER_03 32:24

So it's strange, but in these cases they never seem to require the father to have to have therapy.

SPEAKER_01 32:30

So reunification just for them the child and the mother, and then who's paying for that?

SPEAKER_03 32:37

Well, that's a very good question. Now, when it comes to the mother's therapy, she's expected to pay for that. And she can end up in a catch-22. So, on the one hand, she may not be able to find anyone to do this therapy because some of it, as I said, it sounds a bit wacky and out there. And there have been mothers who've said, I couldn't find anyone to do it. And the expert has then said, Well, then you can't have any contact until you've done the therapy.

SPEAKER_01 33:06

So it's specific therapy, and then you also said that it's funded by the mother. So she she's obviously thinking, well, in some cases, I guess, well, why do I need it? Because I don't because she's not supporting the fact that she has alienated. So this is something that she thinks she hasn't done.

SPEAKER_03 33:20

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 33:20

And then she's in this therapy which she has to do, otherwise she won't see her child. So that's forced therapy then.

SPEAKER_03 33:26

Yes.

SPEAKER_01 33:27

Right? Absolutely. It's sanctioned by the court. Yes. Right. And she's paying for that. Yes.

SPEAKER_03 33:34

Right. And if she does find someone who will do this particular recommended therapy, it can go on for months and years, and these therapists are making a fortune.

SPEAKER_01 33:46

So is that not a conflict of interest that I mean, one someone who is a so-called expert in this particular case is recommending their own services and then getting paid for that? Or, you know, is it or someone that they know is getting paid for that if it is that kind of referral?

SPEAKER_03 34:01

Yes, that is a definite conflict of interest and shouldn't be happening.

SPEAKER_01 34:05

But how is it happening then? Because that must be obvious in the I guess they're writing a report, are they, and then charging for the reports and things like that. So surely this is being submitted to the judge to make the decision. That's pretty clear, isn't it? Who's done what?

SPEAKER_03 34:18

It is, and the judge should not allow it. But it's still happening. I'm not saying in every case, but there this is something one has heard. This is horrific. Uh uh it's happening. It is horrific. It is. These therapists um are making a fortune.

SPEAKER_01 34:36

Um I mean And if the mother says I don't want to do this, then thanks. I don't agree with this, or you know, I what what happens then?

SPEAKER_03 34:44

She may risk not being able allowed to see her child. And there's also, once the courts made this final order, made a child removal order, made some form of contact order. It may be um no contact between mother and child for three months and then contact once she's completed the therapy.

SPEAKER_01 35:03

No contact with her child. So we're talking about average age of eight, you're talking about no contact with an eight-year-old child for three months.

SPEAKER_03 35:11

So in my current research project, there are some mothers who had not seen their children for a year, for two years after the children have been removed, uh, partly because the expert had said, until they've done the therapy, no contact. And then it's down to the expert to decide if the mother is ready to have contact with the children. And the problem is that once these orders have been made, there's no oversight by the court. That's the difficulty. So if con no contact is dragging on and on and on like this, then it's up to the mother to have to bring it back to court. At her own cost. At her own cost, but often before the same judge who's the judge who'd removed the children and didn't form a very favourable impression of her. So it's a very difficult, difficult position uh to be in, uh, particularly when these reunification therapists have been brought into the picture.

SPEAKER_01 36:20

The kind of money that people are making, is there any research on that? So, what kind of money do people make from these things? I mean, therapy, I mean, I I've seen my clients that are being charged, you know, £100 an hour or more to do the therapy. I mean, and this is going on for you talked about three months. That's a long time to be paying those kinds of costs. So, I mean, it does sound like an enormous scam, doesn't it?

SPEAKER_03 36:43

Well, three months is quite short for this kind of therapy. Um, you know, mothers would be expected to do it for three, six months a year, um, at a cost often of a lot more than £100 an hour. Uh so yes, they're making a lot of money, but I I don't think there's any systematic data about that.

SPEAKER_01 37:06

I'd like to see it. So I guess I mean, is a final question to you both. What what would you like to say? Is there anything we haven't talked about that you would like to talk about? I know you spend a lot of your time campaigning on these things. Yeah, what what needs to change to stop this? You know, it does sound a little bit like modern-day witch trials to me, listening to what you're talking about here. There's a lot of women in that case that are dealing with this right now. You know, I I want to help people, I want to give people support and ideas. But we I know you both have dedicated so much of your lives to helping these women and these children and change the system. So, what is it that needs to happen now?

SPEAKER_02 37:44

I think there's lots that needs to happen that we can talk about. You there's lots of that, and I'll come to that in a minute. But I think what actually really needs to happen is people need to understand. The mothers that we are talking about have done nothing wrong. They have no bad record, they are good mothers. Every mother that I have helped through this system who has ended up, unfortunately, in this situation or similar, have all been good parents. These are not mothers who deserve the treatment that they are getting, and of course, the children do not deserve anything of the sort. Um, and I think that that really needs to be made extremely clear here. These are like witch trials in the sense that these are women with no bad record that have done nothing wrong, and then they find themselves in these Kafka-esque trials where whatever they say is reframed as evidence of alienation. I've seen mothers criticized for telling the children that they love them, because that is apparently evidence of further alienation. How? But I'm not sure how. This I don't I don't think that makes any sense. And and I don't think any parent would think that it would be better to not tell a child that they love them. Um, children deserve to feel loved just the same as you know, all children deserve that. These mothers do not deserve the treatment that they are getting from the system. Um, certainly at the scale as well that that this is happening. Um, we are campaigning for a parliamentary review or investigation into this, and we've been calling for this for a long time. 324 children here who are separated from their parent, from their safe parent, who are highly likely to be spending forced to spend time with an abusive parent instead of a safe parent. We need something done about this urgently. This cannot continue.

SPEAKER_01 39:51

So, what kind of changes are we looking for, Adrienne?

SPEAKER_03 39:55

Well, I I think we need to address child removals. That's got to stop. The law has to stop children being removed in private law proceedings from a loving and parent, their resident parent, purely on the basis that that parent is not promoting a relationship with a non-resident parent. And we need to look at uh other jurisdictions. Now, I mentioned Cadence Law in the United States. That was passed in 2022, a federal law, and it encourages states to uh pass legislation which will make these proceedings better and safer for children. And one of the things it does is to outlaw this kind of reunification therapy. So we can look to other jurisdictions. Spain, for example, has passed a law um which effectively outlaws the use of the concept of parental alienation, the term, the term, um, and related terminology. Now it does still happen in Spain just as much as anywhere else. Um, but um you know there is precedent for this. Um this uh parental alienation therapy has got to stop. Uh the courts should not be sanctioning, uh certainly not sanctioning experts recommending themselves or related um therapists to do reunification therapy. And it should not be sanctioned at all by the courts. If there's going to be therapy, it should be the kind of therapy that children um and mothers need to recover from trauma, to recover from abuse, not to try and social engineer a relationship with a non-resident parent. So those would be three asked, but there is one more. Go for it, Adrian. Uh and that is contacts, these contact centres. Yes. Right. Um when I was in practice, the most contact centres uh uh were supporting or supervising contact between, say, fathers, uh non-resident fathers and their children. Now, uh, from what one has heard anecdotally and is emergent from my study, uh, most of the parents in these contact centres seem to be mothers having contact with their children who've lost uh the care of their children through having been removed in these proceedings. And the problems are firstly, these contact centres are not regulated either. So the kind of supervision you get is you know, it's not regulated. They also seem to buy into these ideas about, you know, demonised mothers and uh and you know poor mistreated fathers. Uh and they charge a fortune as well. These mothers are are can be paying a fortune to a therapist and then a fortune to have contact with their children supervised, and there's no uh regulation on how much they can uh charge. So I think that's something that really needs to be looked at as well.

SPEAKER_01 43:19

So fascinating. I mean, obviously, this is designed today to raise awareness of what is actually going on, and as Adrienne said, this is a minority group here, but the impact is huge and devastating, and I think it's unfathomable to even begin to imagine the pain that a mother will go through being separated from her child. I mean, I as a coach I deal with people going through divorce all the time, and you know, in amicable breakups, handing the kids over at a weekend for either parent is really upsetting and difficult. And that's a big part of the coach work we do is helping people to cope when they don't have their kids because they're never signed up to not put into the bed every night. But what we're talking about, and some of the clients that I've worked with over the years, are not seeing their kids for years and years and years. And this is and knowing that the child wants to be with them and they're not able to be there as a parent for them. So this is a really deep level of trauma that doesn't go away, doesn't work out in the long run, and you don't get over that. That's something that lives with you and the children. So I'm really grateful for both of you coming on today to raise such important awareness and shine a light into what's a very dark area, I think. It's not the happiest or easiest of topics to talk about, but you know, I think every time we talk about it, every time we raise awareness, every time you do the amazing work and research you're doing, Adrienne, and all the campaigning you do, Nasty, it's phenomenal. You're helping so many, and you're actually changing what's happening by being here and talking about these issues. So thank you for everything that you're doing. It means the world to me, and I'm sure my listeners will join me in thanking you both for being fabulous guests today. Thank you for having me. Thank you very much for having me. That's it for today's episode. I know it was a hard-hitting one, so please do go and check out the support in the show notes. And if you want to talk to one of my coaches, jump on the free online support groups that we run every week because my coaches are trained to help and support you through this. Also, thanks to Wright to Equality for being part of this and making this podcast mini-series possible. I think you'll agree it's really been powerful, moving, and hopefully it's raised awareness. So do follow, like and share, and all those good things. And I very much look forward to seeing you on my next episode.

SPEAKER_00 45:50

That's it for today's episode of Heartbreak to Happiness. Don't forget to subscribe and leave a review to win a free ticket to Sara's virtual Heartbreak to Happiness retreat. This is a transformative combination of live webinars with Sara herself, coupled with her empowering online video program designed to help you cope better with your breakup and start feeling happy again. Thank you and join us again on the next episode for another dose of Heartbreak to Happiness.