I don’t know what would happen in Ca but in UK ignoring someone at 14-15 is flawed and there would be a presumption she is given voice and included in decisions about her future.
I dont know how it's in the UK, but in California it's not like this (and California is actually even the best in the USA in this regard, because they at least give the theoretical possibility that a 14 year old can give their prefrence, other states dont even have that, or just at 16). It's under huge criticism even because it essentially forces children to not speak up against abusive parents (the chamber solution does exist everywhere, even for younger kids, but is not used that often)
I think it should be always about what is reasonable. A child that doesnt want to live with a parent because they are abusive = reasonable. A child that doesnt want to live with a parent because they are parenting them/have rules = not reasonable. And Ella clearly from everything all parties have said falls into the 2nd category, mixed in with some anger based on lies. And from what I understand this is how it's dealt with in California, and I think it's pretty reasonable. In my opinion it's the UK system (as often) that is flawed here, unless it's about where you want to primarly live rather than being able to fully cut a parent off. But a system that allows child to disown a solid parent is not a good one.
Where the system in California is flawed is that they have a hard time filtering genuine alienation cases from genuine abuse cases, too often they assume for both things alienation, and that's why things like reunification therapies get a bad name even if it's used for genuine cases like this one.
Also you are talking about a "presumption" which means even in the UK a judge/professionals could say that the child doesnt have the capacities (in this case due to manipulation) to be included in decisions about their immediate future, no?
