Well, that seems to depend on the kind of abuse. If the abuse is physical or sexual, the child will be removed from a parent(s) and put into care. That’s public law.
In Parental Alienation cases, children are left to rot. They are allowed to remain with their abuser. That’s private law.
But the ‘threshold’ provisions for removal of the child are exactly the same in public and private law. So, provided we accept that PA is psychological child abuse and that such abuse is as serious as other kinds, we ought, presumably to be able to remove the child once that threshold has been reached (‘triggered’). Anything else would be illogical and inconsistent.
But, if we are to remove a child from the care of an abusive parent, where should the child live? Presumably it is better for the child to live with the other parent, rather than go into care. Indeed, the ‘threshold’ should be lower than when removing the child to the care of the State. That seems to be Lord McFarlane’s rationale in re L 2019, where he said this:
“It is important to note that the welfare provisions in CA 1989, s 1 are precisely the same provisions as those applying in public law children cases where a local authority may seek the court’s authorisation to remove a child from parental care either to place them with another relative or in alternative care arrangements. Where, in private law proceedings, the choice, as here, is between care by one parent and care by another parent against whom there are no significant findings, one might anticipate that the threshold triggering a change of residence would, if anything, be lower than that justifying the permanent removal of a child from a family into foster care”
So, you will be pleased to hear that, as an alienated parent, you are better-placed than a foster home or care home, to care for your child.
I mean, when you say it out loud that seems kinda obvious…