Short answer: no official list of signs exists. Authors and campaign groups wrote the numbered lists that circulate online, usually 8 or 17 signs. No court and no official body publishes one. Cafcass does not even use the words parental alienation. It looks at how one parent behaves over time, and at what that behaviour does to the child. Most of that behaviour now travels through the child’s phone.
In short:
- People use the phrase parental alienation when one parent turns a child against the other parent.
- No doctor can test a child for it, and no official body publishes a list of signs.
- Cafcass uses the words alienating behaviours instead, and weighs the effect on the individual child.
- A frightened parent and a controlling parent produce the same list of signs, so a list settles nothing.
- The phone now carries most of this behaviour, because it gives one parent private access to a child every day.
This post covers the technology rather than the law. It sets out what Cafcass publishes, and what this behaviour looks like on a device.
What is parental alienation?
People use the phrase when one parent turns a child against the other parent, so that the child pulls away from someone they used to be close to.
It builds in small steps. A parent talks about the other one in front of the child. They sigh when the child mentions them. They make the child feel guilty for enjoying a weekend. They pass adult worries about money or the case down to the child. Over a few months the child works out which answers keep the peace at home, and starts giving those answers.
Three things matter about the phrase itself.
No doctor can test a child for it. It describes how an adult behaves, so it is not a condition a child carries.
Cafcass does not use it, which surprises most people who search for it.
And it now travels down a phone line as easily as it once travelled in a car on the way to handover.
Why does Cafcass avoid the words parental alienation?
Because the phrase points at the child. It invites the question of whether the child has something, when the useful question asks what the adults are doing.
Cafcass says 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. It looks at what parents do, and at how that affects each child.
It uses the words alienating behaviours instead. It describes those as a pattern, over time, of negative attitudes and communication about the other parent, which could damage the child’s relationship with them.
Cafcass says something else that most articles skip. Some parents who behave abusively or controllingly tell everyone the other parent is turning the child against them, to move the blame, when the child has actually made their own mind up from their own experience. So a child pulling away from a parent opens a question. It does not answer one.
Where do the “17 signs of parental alienation” lists come from?
From books, therapists and campaign groups, mostly American, copied from website to website ever since.
Anyone who works with separated families will recognise some of what those lists describe. The number causes the trouble. A list of 17 suggests a score to reach, and no score exists. Nobody in the family court treats a list as proof of anything.
Our post Is There a Cafcass Parental Alienation Checklist? sets out what Cafcass publishes, in its own words.
Why do lists of signs not work?
Because the same behaviour has more than one cause, and a list cannot tell you which one you are looking at.
| The sign, as the lists put it | What else looks exactly the same |
|---|---|
| The child will not go, and will not say why | A child who fears a parent, and who someone has told to keep it quiet |
| The child uses adult words about the other parent | A child repeating what they heard in either house, or what they worked out alone |
| One parent cuts down contact between visits | A parent following what a support service advised, or acting on a real worry |
| The child wants nothing to do with one side of the family | An older child picking a side to end an argument they cannot escape |
| The child shows no guilt about it | Ordinary teenage behaviour, and also a sign that a child is struggling |
Everything in the right hand column happens often. That is why Cafcass looks at the whole picture for one particular child instead of filling in a form, and why a list from a blog carries no weight, whatever it calls itself.
Which signs show up on a phone?
Cafcass uses the word pattern. A pattern used to need the school run, the doorstep, the overheard phone call. It no longer does. A parent who has a child’s number reaches that child in private, at any hour, on any day, whoever the child stays with that week.
| What appears on the phone | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Messages arriving all through the child’s time with the other parent | The child never gets a break from it, even on a good weekend. |
| A family group chat where relatives discuss one parent while the child reads it | The child watches the whole family agree, which lands far heavier than one adult saying it. |
| The child answering the same “are you ok?” three or four times an evening | Repeated checking teaches a child that where they are is not safe. |
| Location sharing set up for safety, then watched and mentioned | The child knows someone is watching, and starts changing what they do. |
| One parent reading the child’s messages with the other | The child stops saying what they think, and guards everything after that. |
| Shared photo albums where someone has removed one parent | The child’s own record of their life quietly loses half of it. |
| Data, money or the phone bill used to bargain over contact | The child feels the cost of ringing a parent, which is a lot to carry at 11. |
Two cautions belong with that table. It is not a test, and it does not work as one. A worried parent and a controlling parent can both do every row on it.
What a phone gives, and what nobody’s memory gives, is a dated record of what someone actually sent, in order. That matters, because Cafcass uses the word pattern, and a pattern only appears over time.
What does the child carry?
A child in the middle of this handles two audiences at once, on a small screen, alone, usually late at night.
They learn which parent gets which version. They run two conversations that must never meet. They delete things.
It exhausts them, and it produces the very behaviour the lists point at. Flatness. Anger at the parent they can safely be angry with. Refusing to explain. A list reads that as proof. The effort of managing two households explains it just as well.
Our post Is It Parental Alienation If It Happens Through a Child’s Phone? goes further into how this plays out.
What family law teams tend to miss on the digital side
Three things come up in almost every family Kids n Clicks hears from.
- A pattern needs more than one message. One screenshot shows a row. Six weeks of messages in order show whether something runs on and on, which is the word Cafcass actually uses.
- The material disappears fast. Chats delete themselves on a timer, people close accounts, phones get replaced, backups drop off. What exists at the first meeting often does not exist a year later.
- How a client gathers it changes their position. A parent who installs tracking software, or who reads a child’s private messages to build a case, usually damages their own position. They have also done to their child a version of the thing they came in to complain about.
What any of that is worth in a case is a matter for the solicitor. The work here is making the digital half of the picture visible before it disappears.
Where devices, accounts and passwords still carry over from before the separation, clients often need to untangle that early. Our guide to safeguarding family data on shared devices walks through it, and it is a straightforward thing to send a client.
Training for family law teams
Our Digital Dimension in Family Law training covers this properly: how this behaviour shows up through phones, group chats and shared accounts, how to tell it apart from a parent acting out of real fear, what happens to digital material over time, and where safeguarding sits once a child’s phone comes into it.
The session teaches the technology, not the law. Solicitors already know the law. What often goes missing is a clear read of what actually happened on the phones, the apps and the accounts, and that is the gap this session fills. It is a specialist session, delivered online or in person, to a whole team or to individuals.
If you work in family law, connect with Parven on LinkedIn or get in touch here to book a session for your team.
Parven Kaur is a digital parenting and online safety expert, and the founder of Kids n Clicks. She trains family law teams on the technology side of their cases. She won the Scottish Cyber Security Award, and she sits on the National Board of Advisors for Barnardo’s Scotland.
Was this helpful?
Good job! Please give your positive feedback
How could we improve this post? Please Help us.
