The FJC Case
How the Family Justice Council misrepresented academic research on alienating behaviours
In December 2024, the Family Justice Council published guidance that misrepresents the research it cites. The study's lead author has directly contradicted the FJC's interpretation. When 84 parents raised formal concerns, the FJC dismissed them without addressing the core issues.
What the Research Actually Found
Real Research Findings
of parents reported experiencing alienating behaviours that harmed their parent-child relationship
estimated number of UK children who may be alienated from a parent
UK children estimated to have experienced parental alienating behaviours
Source: Hine, B., Harman, J., Leder-Elder, S., and Bates, E.A. (2024). "Alienating behaviours in separated mothers and fathers in the UK." The University of West London.
The study itself characterises its findings as representing "an urgent and critical public health crisis"— language that stands in stark contrast to the FJC's "rarity" framing.
Direct Statement from the Lead Researcher
"The guidance misrepresents its implications. The report does not claim that alienating behaviours, or behaviours resulting in alienation from a parent, are rare... approximately 110,200 children who may be alienated from a parent—a significant and concerning number (and not rare)."
— Professor Ben Hine, Lead Author of the Cited Study
The lead researcher has directly contradicted the FJC's interpretation of his own work, making it clear that the findings do not support claims of "rarity."
What the FJC Got Wrong
Core Problem
The FJC claims research shows alienating behaviours are "relatively rare" and "rarely manifest" in children's behaviour. However, the research they cite shows the complete opposite.
FJC Claim 1
"Research evidence suggests that Alienating Behaviours which actually impacts on the child's relationship with the other parent are relatively rare"FJC Guidance, paragraph 13
FJC Claim 2
"Research suggests that adult behaviours rarely manifestin the behaviour of children"FJC Guidance, paragraph 57
Both claims cite the same research study (Hine et al., 2024) as their source. However, the research shows the complete opposite.
The Fundamental Methodological Error
The FJC has made a basic methodological error by confusing two completely different concepts:
What the Research Actually Measured
Frequency ratings on a measurement scale
Where "rarely" indicates low-frequency occurrence within cases being studied. This means the behaviour happens, but not constantly.
What the FJC Claims It Means
Categorical assessment of prevalence
Where "rare" suggests exceptional occurrence across a population. This would mean the behaviour almost never happens.
The Critical Distinction
When parents answered "rarely" to questions about their children's behaviours, they were confirming these behaviours do occur—not that they don't exist. "Rarely" is still "yes," not "no."
Timeline of Correspondence
84 parents raised formal concerns about the research misrepresentation. Below is the complete record of correspondence with the Family Justice Council.
84 Parents Raise Concerns
A joint letter signed by 84 parents was sent to the Family Justice Council raising serious concerns about research misrepresentation in their guidance on alienating behaviours.
FJC Defends Their Interpretation
The Family Justice Council responded, defending their interpretation and claiming consistency with research findings. However, they failed to address the core methodological issues.
Point-by-Point Response Sent
A comprehensive rebuttal was sent showing fundamental misinterpretation of methodology, supported by direct quotes from the research authors.
Dismissive Response Received
The FJC's final response was deeply disappointing, claiming prevalence "is not the focus" and completely avoiding addressing the core misrepresentation issues.
Why This Matters
This isn't just an academic dispute about research interpretation. The FJC's guidance directly influences training, policy, and decision-making across family justice in England and Wales.
Training Deficiencies
Local authorities report limited training on alienating behaviours, with one director stating it's covered "albeit not in any significant depth." When official guidance dismisses these behaviours as "rare," comprehensive training is deprioritised.
Early Intervention Lost
By framing these behaviours as "rare," the guidance undermines opportunities for early identification when intervention is most effective. The research suggests over 110,000 children may be affected—early intervention for this population requires accurate understanding of prevalence.
When public bodies misrepresent research in official guidance, vulnerable children suffer. The FJC's dismissive response shows they are not taking accountability seriously.
Access All Documents
All correspondence and supporting materials are available for download. These documents are provided for transparency and public accountability purposes.
Academic Research
"Alienating behaviours in separated mothers and fathers in the UK"
Authors: Hine, B., Harman, J., Leder-Elder, S., and Bates, E.A.
Publisher: The University of West London (2024)
Correspondence with FJC
Original Joint Letter
29 January 2025 • 84 signatories
FJC Initial Response
20 March 2025
Detailed Rebuttal
7 April 2025
FJC Final Response
11 September 2025
Supporting Evidence
Professor Ben Hine's Statement
Direct statement from the lead researcher contradicting the FJC's interpretation.
View StatementReal-World Impact Documentation
Evidence of how the misrepresentation affects training and early intervention.
Download PDFMethodological Analysis
Detailed explanation of the difference between frequency ratings and prevalence assessment.
Download PDFDownload Everything
Get all correspondence and supporting materials in one convenient package.
Download Complete Archive (ZIP)Usage Notice: These documents are provided for transparency and public accountability purposes. Please respect privacy and use responsibly. Direct quotes should be attributed appropriately.
The Story Continues
The FJC's refusal to engage with legitimate concerns about research misrepresentation demonstrates why public accountability is essential. We continue to document this case and seek appropriate corrections.