Survey Results – Initial Impressions

UKAP Survey – Initial Impressions

We have received 13 surveys since posting, about 2 hours ago.  Thank you for such a quick response!   These are the initial findings.

8 of the surveys were completed by men, 5 by women.  Most were in the age range 41 – 60.  Most of you found our template case to be close to their own cases, with some indicating that it was ‘spot on’.  In 10 out of 13 cases, there were allegations made against the Targeted Parent (77%).  In all but one of those cases, the allegations were found to be false, or the judge seemed not to be interested in the allegations.

A majority of those surveyed rejected the other parent, with some saying ‘it’s more complicated’ and only one saying that they were the rejected party.  The average number of children involved was two.

All but one of you said that you had done nothing at all to warrant your child’s rejection of you, with the final answer being that the reasons given were frivolous or exaggerated.

Every respondent described their prior relationship with their child as being “fantastic, close and loving”.

A majority described their health as having suffered seriously, with some saying ‘mildly’ and only one respondent indicating that their health had not suffered at all.

A majority indicate that their ex has not turned up to hearings “many time”, with a few answering ‘once or twice’ .  There was not one case where the court had taken any action about that. Most respondents did not appeal, although one did, and there were a couple of ‘not applicables’.  No respondent answered that their ex had obeyed every Court Order ‘to the letter’.

The average spent on legal costs was over £13,000, with three respondents having spent over £20,000.  Six of you said that the advice was appalling, three said ‘poor’, two said ‘OK’, one ‘good’ and one ‘amazing’.

Six of you had used experts, with the average cost being just under £4,000.   There’s a mixed bag of reviews here split roughly between good/ok and poor, with one ‘amazing’:

“Amazing report that was dead on accurate: ttok 19 hours of interviewing and 8 psychometric tests of both parents, child and grandparents on each side. Diagnosis V995.51 (child abuse) and v61.29. Alienator showed in test to get MAXIMUM score on narcissism test. 220 page report from the psychiatrist and….Judge said PA was an American things and the report was waffle!”



The general consensus is that judges at all levels are weak and cowardly – and ignorant about PA.

There is only one good review of a DJ, indicating that the judge was just and fair and moved the case along quickly, and another respondent indicated that his DJ has moved the case along swiftly, although not identifying PA.  Another indicated that his DJ gave the impression that our TP should be ‘grateful’ for the little contact he did have.  A couple of you indicate that you have had several DJs and some have been good, and some bad.

One review of a magistrate indicated that

“the judge did not identify PA, but has made constructive orders that have progressed matters”

Circuit Judges get poor reviews, but one respondent indicated that

“My personal experience of magistrates is appalling…

My personal experience of district judges is appalling…

My personal experience of circuit judges is absolutely wonderful. Circuit judge understood from the outset that there was an alienating parent and progressed contact at each hearing up to awarding shared residence and equal care and making a judgement of harm against the alienating parent.”

One respondent indicated that they had been before Mags, DJs and Circuit Judges but that it was

“Pointless as they only listen to CAFCASS”

One respondent indicated that the

“High Court Judge recognized PA but still left two youngest children with ex wife alienator. Ignored completely recommendations and solution provided by Psychologist. Both Social Services and Cafcass wanted to systematically reduce contact of two younger children. Have had no contact with older children now for over five years.”


CAFCASS get one ‘good’ review, and three ‘OK’s’.  All other respondents that had had experience of CAFCASS indicate that they are ignorant about PA, lazy or routinely ignore evidence about PA or the other parent being an impediment to contact, with one reviewer indicating that

“I consider CAFCASS to be the root of the problem of parental alienation in the UK.”

Four of you are still seeing your children, albeit not as frequently as you would wish,  A couple of respondents indicate a period of absence of 1 – 2 years, 3 people say 2 – 5 years, with one respondent indicating no contact for over 10 years.

Most of you have tried mediation but consider it a waste of time and that it was not helpful, the ‘ex’ refusing to co-operate/engage with the process.  One respondent indicated that it helped ‘a bit’