Expert Opinion: Professor Ben Hine on Parental Alienation

Please can you tell us a bit about your work and what led you to focus on parental alienation?

My name is Professor Ben Hine, and I’m a Professor of Applied Psychology at the University of West London. My work focuses broadly on family breakdown, domestic abuse, and the psychological experiences of parents and children following separation. Over the last several years, I’ve become particularly focused on parental alienation and alienating behaviours, and I’m now one of the leading academic researchers in this area in the UK.

What initially led me into this work was research I was conducting with male victims of domestic abuse. Many fathers were describing situations where children were effectively being weaponised against them during and after separation. That led me to explore the wider literature around parental alienation and coercive family dynamics more broadly.

There was also a personal dimension to it. Some of the themes emerging in the research resonated with aspects of my own experiences growing up during my parents’ divorce. Combining that lived understanding with the academic evidence really gave me a strong motivation to better understand these behaviours, their impact on children and families, and how systems respond to them.

You’ve recently highlighted a growing disconnect between public narrative, policy, and the evidence base around parental alienation. What do you see as the consequences of that gap?

I think the consequences can be quite serious. Whenever policy and practice drift away from the best available evidence, there’s a risk that systems unintentionally worsen outcomes for children and families rather than improving them.

Parental alienation is an area with a difficult and often polarised history, and I think some people still struggle to move beyond that. But over the last 10 to 15 years, we’ve seen a substantial growth in empirical research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidance that has helped us better understand these behaviours and their impact.

The problem is that this evidence is not always translating into frontline practice or policy. In some cases, that can lead to genuine alienating behaviours being overlooked. In others, it can create highly polarised thinking where professionals feel they must choose between recognising domestic abuse or recognising alienating behaviours, when in reality these issues can overlap significantly.

Ultimately, if systems are not evidence-informed, children are the ones who suffer.

Your research suggests parental alienating behaviours are more widespread than often assumed. Why do you think this evidence isn’t always reflected in policy and practice?

Our research found that between 40 and 60 percent of separated parents reported experiencing alienating behaviours following separation. We also found that almost all adults in our sample recalled experiencing at least one alienating behaviour during childhood, with around a quarter reporting exposure to very high levels of these behaviours.

What’s especially important is that greater exposure was directly associated with poorer mental health outcomes, including depression, PTSD symptoms, and suicidal ideation.

I think one reason this evidence is not always reflected in policy is that parental alienation remains a highly emotionally and politically charged topic. There’s understandable concern about misuse of the concept, particularly in family court settings. But I think sometimes that concern has led to reluctance to engage with the evidence at all.

For me, the solution is not to avoid the issue — it’s to equip practitioners with better training, better frameworks, and better evidence so they can assess these situations properly and safely.

In your view, how can systems ensure that recognising parental alienating behaviours does not unintentionally minimise or obscure experiences of domestic abuse?

I think the key concept here is professional curiosity. Professionals need to approach every case with an open and evidence-led mindset rather than relying on assumptions, stereotypes, or ideological positions.

Recognising alienating behaviours should never mean dismissing or minimising genuine experiences of domestic abuse. In fact, alienating behaviours themselves can form part of broader patterns of coercive control and family violence – and that is what evidence from the US and Canada suggests is happening.

What matters is careful contextual assessment. Professionals should be looking at the history of the parent-child relationship, patterns of behaviour over time, safeguarding evidence, the consistency of disclosures, and the wider family dynamics.

In many cases, genuine abuse concerns will be well supported by evidence. In other cases, allegations may be exaggerated, manipulated, or introduced in ways that are harmful to the child. The role of professionals is to carefully distinguish between those situations rather than assuming one explanation fits every case.

What are the most common ways professionals currently misinterpret or overlook alienating behaviours?

One of the biggest issues is failing to examine the wider context surrounding the child’s rejection of a parent.

If professionals look only at the child’s expressed wishes or at allegations being made by one parent, without exploring the broader history, it can become very easy to misinterpret what is happening.

For example, practitioners need to consider questions such as: What was the child’s relationship with this parent like before separation? Is there evidence of abuse or neglect? Has there been a sudden or disproportionate change in the child’s attitude? Are adult themes or narratives appearing in the child’s language?

Sometimes children are rejecting a parent for very legitimate reasons. But in other cases, there may be strong evidence of psychological influence, pressure, or coercive dynamics. Without a holistic assessment, those distinctions can easily be missed.

From your perspective, how should the family court system handle allegations of alienation, including when these are alongside domestic abuse?

I think allegations of alienating behaviours should be treated seriously in the same way we would treat any allegation of psychological or emotional abuse.

Too often, public discussion frames this as “domestic abuse versus parental alienation,” but I think that is fundamentally the wrong way to understand the issue. Alienating behaviours can themselves form part of coercive and abusive family dynamics.

The family courts therefore need robust, evidence-based approaches that carefully examine context and behaviour rather than relying on simplistic assumptions from either side.

The 2024 Family Justice Council guidance is an important step because it emphasises the need for nuanced and balanced assessment. Good practice means examining safeguarding evidence, relationship histories, patterns of behaviour, and the child’s presentation as part of a full fact-finding process.

And importantly, stronger professional understanding should help courts identify both genuine abuse and spurious allegations more effectively.

What do you think needs to change in policy and practice relating to parental alienation to ensure the best outcomes for babies, children, and families?

I think the biggest change needed is recognition — recognition that alienating behaviours are real, measurable, evidence-based, and potentially highly harmful to children and families.

Once we move beyond debates about whether these behaviours exist, we can focus much more productively on developing safe and evidence-informed responses.

That means improving professional training, strengthening assessment frameworks, ensuring greater consistency across family justice and safeguarding systems, and integrating the latest research into policy guidance.

Most importantly, we need approaches that keep children at the centre. The goal should always be to protect children from harm — whether that harm comes from direct abuse, coercive control, manipulation, or the breakdown of important attachment relationships.