National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

C.J.L. v. M.W.B.:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Kirkland testified about his conclusion that the mother’s behavior in this case had alienated the children from their father.”

C.J.L. v. M.W.B., 879 So.2d 1169, 1175 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003).

K.B. v. Cleburne County Dept. of Human Resources:

Notes: Custodial parent did not change. The expert evaluated for parental alienation and testified but found no evidence to support parental alienation.

“Dr. Reaves, A.C.’s therapist, testified that he had had 9 or 10 one-hour counseling sessions with A.C. . . . Although Dr. Reaves discussed parental alienation syndrome, he stated that he had not found any evidence that the aunt or uncle were alienating A.C. from the mother.”
K.B. v. Cleburne County Dept. of Human Resources, 897 So.2d 379, 383 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004).

M.W.W. v. B.W.:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Wilson’s report, which had been ordered by the trial court, stated, in pertinent part: ‘This does raise the issue of parental alienation, and all of the information that I have seen in this case strongly suggests that this is what [the mother] has been trying to do-she wants her [current husband] to be the father of her children, and she therefore wants to push their father on, and she has done a good job of this with one child, and she appears to be working on the other. . . . Again, all of this strongly suggests parental alienation syndrome and this has to raise serious questions about [the mother]‘s motives. Again, she makes no secret of the fact that she does not think that [the father] should be in their life, and this is always a major concern in this type of case.”
M.W.W. v. B.W., 900 So.2d 1230, 1233-35 (Ala.Civ.App. 2004).

Goetsch v. Goetsch:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The deposition testimony of Dr. Batchelor indicated that she had determined that the children were affected by parental alienation syndrome (“PAS”), a syndrome in which one parent engages in a campaign to break off or minimize a child’s contact with the other parent and to shift the child’s perception of that other parent in a negative direction.”
Goetsch v. Goetsch, 990 So.2d 403, 409 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008).

M.R.D. v. T.D.:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Appellate court said it was improper to terminate visits.

“Dr. David Wilson, a clinical psychologist who specializes in child-sexual-abuse matters, testified at trial that he had extensive field experience, having undertaken hundreds (if not thousands) of abuse evaluations . . . and having served on the board of directors of a child-advocacy center in Gadsden. Based upon his review of the video recording of the CAC interview, Dr. Wilson opined that the interview “was in no way definitive that [the father] did anything sexually to th[e] child” because, among other things, the child had revealed the potential abuse only after repeated questioning and only after making several statements that the father was “mean” (which, Dr. Wilson opined, raised ‘red flags’ about parental alienation).”
M.R.D. v. T.D., 989 So.2d 1111, 1116-17 (Ala.Civ.App. 2008).

Ex Parte S.C.:

“Following the entry of that order, Summerlin referred the child to Dr. Daniel Koch, a forensic psychologist, who Summerlin described as an ‘expert’ in parental alienation syndrome. The child was evaluated by Dr. Koch at some point in late November 2008. . . . The mother’s counsel took exception to the trial court’s order, and the court permitted the mother to proffer her own testimony, as well as the testimony of Summerlin and Dr. Koch. . .. Dr. Koch testified that he had evaluated the child but had not treated the child. His evaluation of the child showed that the child had suicidal ideations, and he believed that it would be risky to suspend the therapeutic relationship between the child and Summerlin. Dr. Koch stated that the appropriate way to counsel the father and the child together would be for the child and Summerlin to meet with the father and his counselor. Dr. Koch believed that, in this scenario, the child would be “protected” and the four individuals could work on the relationship between the child and the father together.”
Ex Parte S.C., 29 So.3d 903, 904-05 (Ala.Civ.App. 2009).

<< Back