National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Turner v. Benson:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

Whether one parent is alienating a child from the other is an important factor to be considered in change of custody cases for, just as the chancellor noted below, a caring relationship with both parents is essential to a healthy upbringing. The testimony of several witnesses left the chancellor with the clear impression that Ben was happy during visitation with appellee, but was
uncomfortable in expressing his enjoyment when he returned to appellant. Former spouses are often hostile to one another, and it is unfortunate when their children are forced to bear the brunt of this bitterness. This type of alienation, knowingly or otherwise, can hardly be said to be in the best interest of the child.
Turner v. Benson, 59 Ark.App. 108, 953 S.W.2d 596, 598-99 (Ark.App. 1997).

Bell v. Bell:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Appellant presented evidence that appellee had told Maegan that appellant was not her biological father. A parent’s attempt to alienate the child from the other is looked upon by this Court with considerable disfavor because ‘a caring relationship with both parents is essential to a healthy upbringing.’ Turner v. Benson, 59 Ark.App. 108, 113, 953 S.W.2d 596, 598 (1997) . . . With the interest of Maegan as our primary concern, we reverse the chancellor’s order awarding the parties joint custody and remand the case to the chancellor to enter an award granting primary custody to appellant with liberal visitation rights to appellee.”
Bell v. Bell, 1998 WL 760251 at **5, 7 (Ark.App. 1998).

Smith v. Smith:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Harter testified further that Michael was the victim of a common scenario called parent alienation that happens in divorce cases.”
Smith v. Smith, 1998 WL 200098 at *2 (Ark.App. 1998).

Chambers v. Chambers:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Based upon his review of the medical records, court filings, and deposition transcripts and video tapes in this case, Dr. Seiler testified that a condition which he termed ‘parental alienation syndrome’ and which he attributed to appellee’s hostility towards appellant has affected the way appellant is viewed by his four daughters, including Alexee.”
Chambers v. Chambers, 2000 WL 795278 at *3 (Ark.App.).

Faucher v. Bitzer:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“On August 4, 2000, the court found that the appellant, Denise Faucher, intentionally or unintentionally alienated the children from their father, Lon Bitzer, and granted full custody to Bitzer.”
Faucher v. Bitzer, 2002 WL 432750 at *1 (Ark.App.).

Carver v. May:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“In this case, that appellant’s actions alienated the children from their father by interfering with visitation to such a degree as to affect the well-being of the children.”
Carver v. May, 81 Ark.App. 292, 298, 101 S.W.3d 256 (2003).

Linder v. Johnson:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“[T]his case . . . turns on the credibility of the witnesses and whether the trial court erred in relying on Dr. DeYoub’s conclusions instead of Dr. Thomas’s. We hold that the trial court did not err in relying on Dr. DeYoub’s conclusions. . . . Although Dr. DeYoub met with the parties for a briefer period than Dr. Thomas did, the statements to Dr. DeYoub made by the children and
Jennifer support his conclusion that Jennifer deliberately and successfully alienated her children from Deron. Based on those statements, Dr. DeYoub concluded that this case was ‘an egregious’ case of parental alienation.”
Linder v. Johnson, 2006 WL 3425021 at *5 (Ark.App. 2006).

Sharp v. Keeler:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“During its 2007 bench ruling, the circuit court reminded Sharp that, ‘I changed custody [to Keeler in 2006] because I found that you were alienating parental affections from father to son and vice versa.’”
Sharp v. Keeler, 103 Ark. App. 233, 236, 288 S.W.3d 256 (Ark.App. 2008).

Wilhelms v. Sexton:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“We acknowledge that there is significant evidence in the record of parental alienation undertaken by Lori Sexton. However, even though we find such conduct deplorable, Wilhelms has not appealed the custody award.”
Wilhelms v. Sexton, 102 Ark. App. 46, 49 n1, 280 S.W.3d 565 (Ark.App. 2008).

Hanna v. Hanna:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“We can think of nothing more detrimental to a caring relationship between a child and a noncustodial parent than when every casual physical contact between the noncustodial parent and the child is called sexual abuse by the custodial parent, and he or she influences the child to interpret these incidents as such. Here the trial court found that [Mother] was trying to alienate the children from [Father] in this fashion, and we cannot say that this finding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. [Order changing custody of two teenage daughters to ex-husband: affirmed.]”
Hanna v. Hanna, 2010 Ark. App. 58, — S.W.3d —, 2010 WL 183413 at *17.

Grove v. Grove:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Deyoub authored a second report dated September 25, 2009. In his twenty-four-page report, Dr. Deyoub concluded, as he did in 2007, that Kristi and her parents had continued to coach the children to make false allegations of abuse against Jeffrey in an effort to alienate them from him. . . . In this case, the testimony of Kristi’s efforts to alienate her children from their father and the effect her behavior had on her children supports the trial court’s findings that a material change in circumstances had occurred and the change in custody was in the children’s best interests.”
Grove v. Grove, 2011 Ark. App. 648, — S.W.3d —, 2011 WL 5253033 at **3, 9.

Putt v. Suttles:

Alienating Parents: Step ♂ & ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“After hearing all of the evidence, the trial court found that the joint-custody arrangement was not working and that primary custody should be awarded to one of the parties. The court found that Putt had ‘engaged in a deliberate pattern of parental alienation’ against appellee, that he had enlisted appellant’s assistance in that campaign, and that Putt had made it clear that he was going to control how appellee could contact his children, which is ‘grossly inappropriate.’”
Putt v. Suttles, 2011 Ark. App. 688, — S.W.3d —, 2011 WL 5387435 at *7.

<< Back