Short answer: no. There is no public Cafcass parental alienation checklist, and searching for the PDF will not turn one up, because Cafcass does not use the term “parental alienation” at all. It uses “alienating behaviours”, and its Family Court Advisers assess those through the Child Impact Assessment Framework, which looks at the effect on the individual child rather than at whether a label fits.
In short:
- Cafcass says plainly that it does not use or refer to the term parental alienation, which is often framed as a condition or syndrome.
- It uses alienating behaviours to describe an ongoing pattern of negative attitudes and communication about the other parent or carer.
- There is no scored checklist to fill in. Assessment runs through the Child Impact Assessment Framework and the adviser’s professional judgement.
- Cafcass is explicit that an alienation claim is sometimes used to counter an allegation of domestic abuse, and that both can be present at once.
- Much of the behaviour now happens on a child’s phone, which is the part I work on.
I am a digital parenting and online safety specialist, not a lawyer. This post explains what Cafcass publishes and how this behaviour shows up on devices. It is not legal advice, and anything about your own case belongs with a family solicitor.
Why doesn’t Cafcass use the term “parental alienation”?
Because the phrase describes the child rather than the adult. Treating alienation as a condition a child has invites the question of whether they have it, which is a diagnosis nobody in the family court is there to make.
Cafcass states on its alienating behaviours page that it does not use or refer to the term parental alienation, and that it does not focus on applying a label but on the impact on each child of parental behaviours that may be harmful to them.
That is a meaningful difference for anyone gathering material. A label needs a child to be assessed. A behaviour needs an adult’s conduct to be described, and conduct is far easier to show than a diagnosis is to prove.
What does Cafcass mean by alienating behaviours?
In its own words, alienating behaviour describes how one parent or carer undertakes or expresses an ongoing pattern of negative attitudes and communication about the other parent or carer, with the potential or intention to undermine, manipulate or destroy a child’s relationship with them.
Three things in that definition do the work:
| Phrase Cafcass uses | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| An ongoing pattern | One bad comment in a hard week is not this. Repetition over time is. |
| Attitudes and communication | It includes tone, atmosphere and implication, not only what was said outright. |
| Potential or intention | A parent does not have to have set out to do it. The effect on the child is enough to matter. |
| Range in intensity and duration | Cafcass treats this as a spectrum, not a yes or no finding. |
Cafcass also notes that where a child is being manipulated or coerced into turning against a parent, this may amount to emotional abuse as defined in the Children Act 1989.
What does Cafcass use instead of a checklist?
The Child Impact Assessment Framework, usually shortened to CIAF. It was built to help Family Court Advisers understand how a particular child is experiencing their parents’ separation and what it is doing to them, including the impact of any alienating behaviours.
It is a framework for professional judgement, not a form that produces a score. That is why no checklist PDF exists to download, and why a list of signs found on a blog carries no official standing whatever it is titled.
Cafcass sets out the order of the assessment clearly: the first step when a child is resisting or refusing to see a parent is to consider whether domestic abuse or other harmful parenting is a factor. Alienating behaviours are considered alongside that, not instead of it.
Why does Cafcass warn about counter-claims?
This is the part most articles on the subject leave out, and it deserves to be quoted rather than paraphrased away.
Cafcass says that people who are abusive, controlling or violent will sometimes attempt to deflect blame, or reverse culpability, by claiming the other parent is alienating the child against them, when in fact the child has come to their own conclusions based on their experiences.
It also lists ordinary reasons a child may resist seeing a parent that have nothing to do with either parent’s conduct: fear of a parent who has been abusive, anger at the parent who left, simple dislike of a parent or their circumstances, or opting out because the conflict at home has become unbearable.
So an accusation of alienation is not evidence of alienation. It is a claim that has to be examined like any other, and Cafcass examines it in that order deliberately.
Where does a child’s phone come into this?
This is the part I work on, so it is the part I can speak to.
Cafcass describes an ongoing pattern of attitudes and communication. Twenty years ago that pattern lived in the car on the way to handover and in remarks made at the door. It now largely lives on the child’s phone, because that is where a parent has private, constant, unsupervised access to their child regardless of whose week it is.
| What it looks like on the device | Which part of the Cafcass description it touches |
|---|---|
| Messages arriving steadily through the child’s time with the other parent | An ongoing pattern rather than a single incident |
| A family group chat where the absent parent is discussed in front of the child | Attitudes and communication, with an audience of relatives |
| Shared albums and accounts where one parent has been edited out | Undermining the child’s relationship over time |
| Location sharing framed as safety and then checked constantly | Potential effect on the child whether or not it was intended |
| A parent reading the child’s messages with the other parent | The child self-censors, which changes what any later account shows |
Two honest cautions about that table. It is not a test, and I am not offering it as one. A worried parent and a controlling parent can both do every row on it, which is exactly why Cafcass looks at the whole picture and at what is happening for that child rather than at a list. What a device does give is a dated record of what was actually sent, in order, which is more reliable than either parent’s memory of a difficult year.
If devices, accounts and passwords are still shared from before the separation, sorting that out properly is worth doing early. Our guide to safeguarding family data on shared devices covers how to separate accounts without losing things you need.
Whether any of this matters legally in your situation is a question for a family solicitor, not for me.
What I would want a family solicitor to know about the digital side
Three things come up again and again in the families I hear from.
- The pattern is the point, and patterns need volume. A single screenshot shows almost nothing. Weeks of messages in sequence show whether something is ongoing, which is the word Cafcass actually uses.
- The material spoils quickly. Accounts get closed, chats auto-clear on a timer, phones get replaced and cloud backups roll off. Raising preservation at the first meeting is far easier than trying to recover anything six months later.
- How a client gathers it matters. A parent who reads their child’s private messages or installs monitoring software to build a case has usually made their own position worse, and has done to their child a version of the thing they are complaining about.
What any of that is worth in proceedings is your call, not mine. My job is making sure the digital half of the picture is understood before it disappears.
Training for family law teams
Our Digital Dimension in Family Law training covers this in practical detail: how alienating behaviours present through devices, group chats and shared accounts, how to tell that apart from a parent acting out of genuine fear, what happens to digital material over time, and where safeguarding sits when a child’s phone and accounts are involved.
It teaches the technology, not the law. You are the lawyers. My job is to make sure the digital half of a case is not the half nobody in the room understands.
It is built for family law practitioners rather than a general safeguarding audience, and it can be delivered to a whole team as well as to individuals. Get in touch to find out when the next session runs.
Was this helpful?
Good job! Please give your positive feedback
How could we improve this post? Please Help us.
