Dear Sir,

Bermuda has established mechanisms to respond to child abuse and neglect. Through the Family Court and the Department of Child and Family Services, visible forms of harm are rightly treated with urgency and care.

However, an important policy question remains: how does our system address psychological harm that may arise during high-conflict custody disputes?

International research has increasingly examined what is often referred to as “parental alienating behaviours” — patterns in which a child is encouraged, consciously or unconsciously, to reject a parent without clear justification.

The American Psychological Association has acknowledged the damaging effects of children being exposed to continuing inter-parental hostility. Similarly, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry notes that children caught in intense parental conflict are at elevated risk of anxiety, depression and behavioural difficulties.

Courts in Britain and Canada have also recognised that unjustified obstruction of a child’s relationship with a parent can constitute emotional harm, warranting judicial intervention in certain cases.

The question for Bermuda is not whether such dynamics exist — they do in all jurisdictions — but whether they are consistently identified, measured and addressed within our own family justice framework.

In prolonged proceedings, interim orders, supervised visitation arrangements and unresolved allegations can sometimes result in extended separation before final determinations are made.

In cases where restrictions are necessary for safety, they are essential. But where allegations remain unsubstantiated or disputes become protracted, the long-term relational impact on the child deserves careful monitoring.

Are alienating behaviours formally screened during intake assessments?

Is there consistent training for family court professionals on distinguishing protective action from psychological manipulation?

Is anonymised data collected on prolonged loss of parental contact during litigation?

Greater transparency, improved data collection and specialised training would not undermine legitimate protective measures. Rather, they would strengthen confidence that decisions are both child-centred and evidence-based.

Bermuda has demonstrated commitment to safeguarding children. Expanding that commitment to include clearer recognition of psychological relational harm would be a constructive next step.

Addressing youth mental health challenges requires looking at the full context of childhood experiences — including family dynamics during separation.

If we are prepared to confront difficult issues openly and carefully, we strengthen both families and the institutions designed to protect them.

Justly,

OWEN MILLETT

Hamilton Parish