Can One Parent Refuse Therapy Or Counselling For A Child After Separation?

One area that increasingly causes disagreement when parents separate is whether a child should attend therapy or counselling. It might sound like a straightforward welfare decision, but in practice it can raise questions about parental rights, consent, medical autonomy, and, most importantly, the child’s best interests.

This article looks at how the law approaches situations where one parent wants a child to attend therapy or counselling and the other does not, and what options are available when agreement cannot be reached.

Why might therapy or counselling be considered?

In many cases, support is recommended because of the emotional impact of the separation itself. Children may struggle with changes in routine, divided homes, reduced contact with one parent, or exposure to parental conflict. Even where the separation has been handled amicably, children can experience anxiety, sadness, or confusion that may benefit from professional support.

In other situations, therapy may be suggested because of developments after separation. For example, a child might show behavioural changes at school, difficulty sleeping, withdrawal, anger, or signs of distress when moving between households. The introduction of a new partner, relocation, or ongoing disputes between parents can all contribute to a need for therapeutic help.

There are also cases where therapy has nothing to do with the separation. A child may already have been receiving support before the relationship breakdown, such as for neurodevelopmental conditions, trauma, bereavement, or mental health concerns like anxiety or depression. The question then becomes whether that support should continue, be altered, or stopped altogether.

Parental responsibility and decision-making

Decisions about a child’s upbringing are governed by the concept of parental responsibility (PR). In most separated families, both parents will hold PR and are expected to make important decisions jointly.

Medical treatment and psychological therapy are generally regarded as significant decisions. That means, in principle, both parents should be consulted and agreement sought before a child begins a course of therapy.

However, the law recognises that not every disagreement can be resolved easily. The main principle underpinning any decision is the child’s welfare, and this is the court’s paramount consideration if the issue escalates to legal proceedings.

Why might a parent refuse therapy?

It is not uncommon for one parent to resist the idea of therapy or counselling. Some parents may question whether therapy is necessary at all and feel the child is coping adequately, the issues are temporary, or they are a child’s normal emotional response to the prevailing circumstances.

Others may have concerns about the type of therapy proposed. For example, they might disagree with the approach taken by a particular therapist, worry about the child being influenced, or fear that sessions could be used to gather information for use in ongoing disputes.

There are also practical considerations; therapy can involve cost, travel, and time commitments, and one parent may feel these burdens are disproportionate or unnecessary.

In more contentious cases, objections can stem from mistrust between parents. A parent might suspect that the other is using therapy to reinforce a particular narrative, especially in situations involving allegations of alienation or disputes about contact.

It is important to recognise that the court does not automatically dismiss a parent’s refusal as unreasonable. The question is whether the objection is grounded in the child’s welfare, or whether it is obstructive or driven by adult conflict.

Can one parent arrange therapy without the other’s consent?

It is possible for one parent to arrange counselling during their own time with the child, particularly if the therapy is relatively low level, such as school-based counselling or informal support. Some therapists may proceed because of consent from one parent with PR, especially if the child is deemed competent to engage.

However, this approach carries risks. If the therapy is considered a significant intervention, or if the other parent actively objects, proceeding unilaterally can escalate conflict and may be criticised if the matter comes before a court.

Healthcare professionals and therapists are increasingly cautious about consent in separated-parent situations. Many will require confirmation that both parents with PR agree, particularly for ongoing or structured therapeutic work.

So while it is not strictly prohibited for one parent to arrange therapy, doing so without agreement can create legal and practical complications.

Does the child have a say?

A child’s wishes and feelings are an important part of the decision-making process, particularly as they get older.

There is no fixed age at which a child can make decisions independently, but the concept of Gillick competence applies. This means that a child who has sufficient understanding and intelligence to decide about their own welfare may be able to consent to treatment.

In the context of therapy, an older child, particularly a teenager, may express a clear view about whether they want to attend counselling. This is likely to carry significant weight, although it will not be the only consideration.

For younger children, their wishes will still be considered, but more indirectly. A therapist, school, or court-appointed professional may assess how the child is feeling and whether therapy is likely to benefit them.

Ultimately, the child’s welfare remains the guiding principle, not simply their stated preference.

What happens if parents cannot agree?

The first step is usually to try to resolve the issue outside of court. This might involve discussion through solicitors, mediation, or input from professionals such as a GP, school, or existing therapist. A neutral professional opinion can sometimes help bridge the gap.

If agreement still cannot be reached, either parent can apply to the court for a specific issue order. This asks the court to decide a particular question about the child’s upbringing such as whether a child should attend therapy.

Alternatively, a parent who opposes therapy might seek a prohibited steps order to prevent the other parent from arranging it.

When considering such applications, the court will look at the welfare checklist. This includes factors such as the child’s needs, the likely effect of any change in circumstances, and any harm the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering.

The court may also seek input from CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), which can provide an independent assessment of the child’s situation and make recommendations.

Who makes the final decision?

If the matter reaches court, the judge will make the final decision based on what is in the child’s best interests.

The court is not concerned with which parent is right in principle, but with what outcome best supports the child’s emotional and psychological wellbeing.

In some cases, the court may order that therapy takes place, specifying the type of therapy or leaving the details to be agreed with professionals. In others, it may decide that therapy is not necessary at that stage.

The court can also make more nuanced orders, for example, directing that an initial assessment takes place, or that both parents engage in family therapy rather than individual sessions for the child.