When a Child Turns Away Understanding the Difference Between Parental Alienation and Estrangement

This article was originally published in Law360 Canada.

In family law, it’s not unusual to see situations where a child refuses to spend time with one parent. But behind that refusal, there’s often a deeper story. The challenge, both for the courts and for the families themselves, is to understand what that story really is.

Sometimes, a child’s rejection of a parent is called parental alienation. Other times, it’s recognized as estrangement. The words sound similar, but they mean very different things. And the long-term impact on children and parents can be significant.

Let’s take a closer look.

Two Different Realities

Parental alienation happens when a child is turned against a parent not because of something that parent did, but because of the other parent’s actions. These actions might be subtle or blatant, but they work over time to undermine the child’s relationship with the targeted parent. The law describes it as a “process” rather than a diagnosis, something that unfolds over time through manipulation, criticism, or emotional pressure.

In Bors v Beleuta, the court explained it this way: parental alienation involves the “systematic devaluation, minimization, [and] discreditation” of a parent’s role in a child’s life through a variety of behaviours that include rewriting history and emotional coercion. It was called what it is: a form of child abuse.[1]

Estrangement, on the other hand, is what happens when a child refuses contact for good reason, because of real, lived experiences with that parent. It might stem from emotional volatility, neglect, or past abuse. When this is the case, the child’s refusal is “logical and rational,” and courts see it as a legitimate reaction rather than manipulation.[2]

In J.L. v D.L., for example, the children refused contact with their father not because their mother turned them against him, but because of his own behaviour, such as his anger, physicality, and emotional outbursts. The court found that the children’s decision came from legitimate concerns, not alienation tactics.[3]

Why The Difference Matters

The distinction isn’t just academic. It has real consequences for families, and especially for children. Courts take different approaches depending on whether the problem is alienation or estrangement, and those approaches can reshape a child’s future.

In alienation cases, time is critical. The longer a child remains cut off from the alienated parent, the harder it becomes to rebuild the relationship. In Malhotra v Henhoeffer, the court emphasized that without early intervention, the damage may become “much more difficult, if not impossible,” to repair.[4] In such cases, the courts may go as far as reversing custody or even suspending contact with the alienating parent temporarily.[5]

But if it’s estrangement, the response must be different. Forcing contact when a child has been genuinely harmed or deeply affected by a parent’s conduct can do more harm than good. The court in Shea v Shea was cautious not to impose therapy or change residence unless the child was ready. The child’s preferences were taken seriously because they were “independently held, consistent, and entitled to considerable weight.”[6] Additionally, courts avoid “force-marching” children into reunification therapy unless supported by expert recommendations.[7]

The Long Road Ahead

The long-term impacts of getting this distinction wrong are serious. In alienation, a child may grow up estranged from a loving parent because of manipulation they didn’t even recognize at the time. In estrangement, a child may be retraumatized if forced into contact before healing has begun.

The consequences ripple into adulthood, affecting a child’s ability to trust, form relationships, and understand healthy conflict. As for the parents, one may feel unfairly cut off, while the other may be blamed for conduct they didn’t engage in. The emotional toll is heavy on all sides.

That’s why courts must take care, not just to assess behaviour, but to listen closely to children, to understand not only what they are saying, but why they are saying it. Are their views consistent? Are they borrowed from a parent or drawn from the child’s own personal experience? As the court in Stavropoulos v Stavropoulos reminded us, a child’s refusal may be their own way of protecting themselves, and not always the result of alienation.[8]

Final Thoughts

It’s tempting to simplify things when emotions run high. But when a child turns away from a parent, it’s not always clear what’s behind that choice. Is it fear? Is it manipulation? Is it something in between?

What’s needed most in these cases is humility: from parents, from lawyers, and from the courts. No one wins when a child loses a parent. But understanding the difference between alienation and estrangement is a step toward addressing the root causes with honesty, fairness, and compassion.

And that, more than anything else, is in the child’s best interests.

[1] See Bors v Beleuta, 2019 ONSC 7029 (CanLII) at paras 119-122 [Bors].

[2] See J.C.  v R.P., 2022 ONSC 2751 (CanLII) at para 15(c) [JC v RP].

[3] See J.L. v D.L., 2022 ONSC 1004 (CanLII) at paras 36, 68-70 [JL v DL].

[4] See A.M. v C.H., 2018 ONSC 6472 (CanLII) at para 105 [AM v CH].

[5] See MB v DB, 2020 ONSC 790 (CanLII) at paras 9, 147(4) [MB v DB].

[6] See Shea v Shea, 2022 ONSC 1786 (CanLII) at para 94 [Shea].

[7] See J.C.  v R.P., 2022 ONSC 2751 (CanLII) at para 15(e) [JC v RP].

[8] See Stavropoulos v Stavropoulos, 2021 ONSC 5753 (CanLII) at para 22 [Stavropoulos].