National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Case v. Richardson:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

[Note: Case v. Richardson is misidentified several times on Westlaw as Chase v. Richardson. It is clear from the case document that the party’s name is Case.]

“Bruce Freedman, Ph.D., conducted two evaluations at the request of the court: July 23, 1992 and August 1992. Dr. Freedman advised the court that each of mother’s first two husbands were accused by Mrs. Shank of being a child molester and that he did not believe mother thought Gary Shank was the father of her child. He advised the court that he saw Parental Alienation Syndrome begin at the time of mother’s pregnancy.”
Case v. Richardson, 1996 WL 434281 at *2 (Conn.Super.)

Karol v. Karol:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“After she left Pond House, mother systematically alienated the children from their father. Father behaved with dignity and caring throughout mother’s most outrageous period. Rather than appreciating his remarkable patience and support while mother was attacking him, mother told untruths about both her behavior and her husband’s behavior.”
Karol v. Karol, 1996 WL 898369 at *5 (Conn.Super.).

Bowles v. Bowles:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody from joint to split

“This court finds that it is in the best interest of Ryan that he reside primarily with his father. This court cannot find that it is in the best interest of Thomas to reside with his mother. His parenting needs are not well met by Ms. Bowles. However, this youngster has achieved such a high level of alienation from his father that it would be unrealistic and counter-productive to seriously entertain requiring him, at age 16 and as willful as has been indicated, to reconcile with and live with his father. Ultimately this would be the better choice for Thomas. His aversion to his father fed by his mother and confirmed daily to himself by tautological thinking will prevent any reconciliation for quite some time. [Court changes joint custody of two children to sole custody to each parent, the older most alienated child to the alienating mother.]”
Bowles v. Bowles, 1997 WL 639491 at *6 (Conn.Super. 1997).

Metza v. Metza:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“There is evidence that the plaintiff has engaged in negative behavior towards the defendant in front of the children, which adversely impacts their perceptions of him. She has made disparaging remarks about the defendant regarding child support, these court proceedings, her opinions of his motivation for custody, and other issues. These types of statements can lead to the Parental Alienation Syndrome. Joseph’s view of his father is quite positive and does not appear to have been affected by the plaintiff’s comments. Andrew, on the other hand, has become alienated from his father, which is partially due to this alienating behavior.”
Metza v. Metza, 1998 WL 695273 at *3 (Conn.Super.).

Havanec v. Havanec:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀♂ — This is a divorce action. The Court found alienation in this case, but no expert testified.

“As to the issue of parental alienation the court finds that the actions of the plaintiff and defendant have contributed to the plaintiff’s alienation from his minor children.”
Havanec v. Havanec, 2000 WL 1340172 at *2 (Conn.Super.).

Ruggiero v. Ruggiero:

Notes: The court below made a factual finding, without expert testimony, that Father had engaged in parental alienation.

“[T]he court made a factual finding that the plaintiff had engaged in parental alienation. The plaintiff’s claim concerning parental alienation dealt with the issue of the validity of a finding of parental alienation syndrome [italics for underline in original]. The court did not address any potential mental health condition. This opinion utilizes the court’s factual conclusion that the plaintiff’s activity as a parent [italics in original] alienated the defendant, and this court makes no decision concerning the validity of such a syndrome.”
Ruggiero v. Ruggiero, 76 Conn.App. 338, 338 n1, 819 A.2d 864 (2003).

Sapper v. Sapper:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂ — The Court found that the father alienated the children from their mother; because they were older kids, the Court granted joint legal custody, but the kids were allowed to choose which household they would live in.

“It is in the best interests of the minor child(ren) that they have the opportunity and financial means to undo the parental alienation their father has instilled in them over the last several years.”
Sapper v. Sapper, 2006 WL 3114318 at *5 (Conn.Super.).

Snyder v. Cedar:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Notes: Expert made a finding of PAS and testified, but the court did not recognize PAS.

“One of Snyder’s witnesses was Diane Rotnem, Ph.D., a licensed clinical social worker who provided psychotherapy to Aviva that began when Aviva was 4 1/2 and ended in January 1992 when Aviva was 7. Rotnem testified that in her expert opinion Aviva currently displays all of the characteristics of a severe victim of ‘parental alienation syndrome.’ . . .”
Snyder v. Cedar, 2006 WL 539130 at **8, 9 (Conn.Super.).

Krukiel v. Krukiel:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Black’s testimony and his reports are clear that it is his opinion that a ‘state of alienation’ exists as between the boys and the Defendant. . . . Dr. Black testified that . . . (1) The child exhibits antagonism toward the alienated parent; 2) Specific and few events are present that could be used as a basis for the antagonism, all of which cannot reasonably justify the antagonism; 3) When a child is asked why he/she feels negatively toward the alienated parent, the response is generalized, i.e., “He’s mean”; 4) The child is very aligned with the alienating parent; and 5) The child doesn’t want to be with the alienated parent. . . . [T]he Court finds Dr. Black’s findings [and] conclusions . . . trustworthy.”
Krukiel v. Krukiel, 2007 WL 241257 at *6 (Conn.Super.) (enphasis added).

Stancuna v. Stancuna:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody gradually moved to target parent majority: ♀

“After considering all of the evidence presented, the court finds Ms. Stancuna’s testimony about her marriage and her relationship to Mr. Stancuna to be credible and true. The ineluctable implication of that finding is the subsidiary finding that her separation from the children for ten months while she was in Russia, the damage to her parental bond with the children during that time, . . . the need thereafter to reintroduce herself to the children as their mother through supervised therapeutic visitations, and the restrictions on her access to the children because of her husband’s claims that she has untreated mental problems and would flee with them to Russia have all resulted from efforts by the father to alienate the children from their mother on a groundless basis.”
Stancuna v. Stancuna, 2007 WL 2570428 at *5 (Conn.Super. 2007)

D’Urso v. D’Urso:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Nikko has seen the school counselor, Peter Tolk, Ph.D., for approximately four years and the counselor has spoken to all three D’Urso children. Dr. Tolk had contact exclusively with Mr. D’Urso until the spring of 2006 when mother called him and requested he speak with all three children about the divorce. Dr. Tolk felt that Tyler and Hunter appeared to be adjusting to the divorce well. However, Nikko had some issues regarding the amount of information that had been shared with him concerning the divorce. Dr. Tolk described Nikko as ‘parentified’ and ‘responsible.’ The Family Relations’ Counselor testified that she witnessed the mother engaged in alienating behavior, telling the children details of the divorce they did not need to know, taping the children’s telephone calls with father, and making disparaging remarks about father in front of the children.”
D’Urso v. D’Urso, 2008 WL 2895727 (Conn.Super.).

Linnell v. Linnell:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“By agreement dated August 3, 2006 and September 5, 2006, the parties agreed to undergo psychological evaluation and further agreed that such evaluation would be performed by Dr. Bruce Freedman, a licensed psychologist (hereinafter referred to as ‘Freedman’). . . . The Court finds Freedman’s evaluation to be comprehensive, unbiased, consistent with other evidence and reliable. . . . As to the Defendant, Freedman found that she showed a significant elevation of histrionic characteristics. This scale was well above the average for female custody litigants. Further, Freedman concluded, ‘under the thinly veiled guise of protecting her children, Linda began a campaign of denigrating her husband, exaggerating or fabricating problems, a pattern rec-
ognized by every professional who had contact with the family.’ This raised significant concern as to the potential for parental alienation.”
Linnell v. Linnell, 2008 WL 1913991 at **5-6 (Conn.Super.).

Tabner v. Cessario:

[UNPUBLISHED]

“Dr. Freedman issued a comprehensive report concluding that the mother should continue with sole custody and that the father should have visitation rights, strictly spelled out and strictly adhered to. He recommended that these visits be phased in to avoid an abrupt change in the child’s routine. He notes that ‘Mr. Cessario could be very stubborn, relatively insensitive to the needs and wishes of others, leading to an overly aggressive approach at times, and an unwillingness to accept restrictions on his own freedom of thought or action.’ Dr. Freedman considered and then rejected Mr. Cessario’s claims that the mother had subjected the minor child to parental alienation syndrome.”
Tabner v. Cessario, 2008 WL 366637 at *5 (Conn.Super.).

Toal v. Toal:

[UNPUBLISHED]

“The psychological evaluator found Cassandra’s mother to be a capable and non-alienating parent.”
Toal v. Toal, 2008 WL 803663 at *2 (Conn.Super.).

In re Jaime S.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

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

“At the request of the father, agreed to by the mother, prior to the trial the court ordered that Jaime meet with a psychologist concerning his perceptions and memories of his father and the basis for such perceptions. . . . At the trial such psychologist was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic psychology and custody evaluations and an expert in the area of parental alienation. . . . Such psychologist defined parental alienation as a circumstance where one parent portrays the other parent in a negative light and the child takes note of such portrayal. The child has less or no contact with the alienated parent based on the perception put forth by the other parent. He testified that any professional performing custody or visitation evaluations would be familiar with the concept of parental alienation.”
In re Jaime S., 2009 WL 4069575 at *18-19 (Conn.Super.).

Mettler v. Mettler:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Green has also concluded, and this court concurs in his opinion and so finds, that Ms. Mettler ‘presents a serious risk to Shaw’s psychological and emotional growth and well-being,’ Def. Ex. III, p. 53, and to Shaw’s having a good, positive relationship with her father. . . . When asked at trial about the ‘likely long-term effects’ of Shaw’s remaining in her current environment, Dr. Green responded with a two-fold response. First, he described the effect it would have on her relationship with her father: ‘It would alienate her from-again, I’m not using that word technically. It would cause her to not enjoy her time with her father. It would put her in the middle-it would give her the information that I’m not allowed to enjoy my time with my father.’ Then he described its effects on Shaw herself: ‘What we usually see in this case is the child beginning to act out as a teenager, pregnancy, substance abuse, sometimes suicidality, sometimes that doesn’t occur until the twenties, then you really also see alienation from the mother so that by the time the child gets into college and starts speaking to other people and finds out what other people, other students have been through they start questioning themselves, and questioning their relationship with their mother, and it can cause a terrible crevasse between Mom and Daughter at a later stage in life, teenage, college years.’”
Mettler v. Mettler, 2009 WL 1424210 at *28 (incl. n18) (Conn.Super.).

Haber v. McNally:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂

“It is . . . ordered that the plaintiff shall contact and go to a psychologist with a specialty in the effects of parental alienation on children. Until said psychologist no longer sees the plaintiff as presenting a psychological danger to plaintiff’s minor child relative to his adversely affecting said minor child’s relationship with her mother, the plaintiff’s visitation with his minor child shall be supervised by Auers Agency at plaintiff’s expense. All overnight visitation is suspended until further order of the court.”
Haber v. McNally, 2010 WL 5030121 at * (Conn.Super.).

In re Jaime S.:

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

“Eric Frazer, a court-appointed psychologist, conducted an evaluation of the child and testified at trial. The court qualified Frazer as an expert in the field of forensic psychology, custody evaluations and parental alienation.”
In re Jaime S., 120 Conn.App. 712, 727, 994 A.2d 233 (2010).

Keramidas v. Keramidas:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ (Mentally ill) — Custody to target parent: ♂

“FINDINGS OF FACT . . . 3. The defendant has alienated the child from the plaintiff, has interfered with his role having sole custody, has interfered with the child’s medication, has injected the child into the legal proceedings, has undermined the plaintiff’s parental authority, and has denigrated the plaintiff in the child’s presence. Her continued unsupervised access to the child is likely to cause harm to the child.”
Keramidas v. Keramidas, 2010 WL 795084 at *5 (Conn.Super.).

Balaska v. Balaska:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Greatly increased contact for target parent: ♂

“In addition to modifying the defendant’s visitation with C, the court ordered that the defendant’s visitation with A would be suspended entirely. In reaching that decision, the court discussed the high conflict nature of the parties’ marital dissolution and how that conflict may have impacted the relationship between the defendant . . . and A. The court also . . . indicated that it had performed ‘significant research’ on the topic of parental alienation syndrome . . . particularly by reviewing several treatises and articles devoted to alienation. After summarizing that research, [T]he court noted that this case presented facts consistent with alienation. In this connection, the court stated that the plaintiff’s ‘disdain, dislike [and] hatred of [the defendant] was obvious to the court during her testimony,’ and that her ‘virtually radioactive’ hatred toward the defendant had ‘poisoned’ A. Moreover, the court found that, consistent with parental alienation, the plaintiff’s feelings of hatred for the defendant had been transmitted to A.”
Balaska v. Balaska, 130 Conn.App. 510, 520-21, 25 A.3d 680 (2011).

Dean v. Valinho:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

[Extensive testimony taken on the subject of parental alienation from James Black, therapist; custody evaluators Sydney Horowitz and Linda Smith; and experts retained by the parties: clinical psychologists Peter Jaffe and Stephen Humphrey.]
Dean v. Valinho, 2011 WL 8204118 (Conn.Super.).

Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“[Sole legal custody granted to plaintiff father temporarily, pending hearing on motion to change custody. After hearing: Father’s motion granted.] In the event that the defendant seeks modification of the parenting orders herein, the defendant shall be deemed to have waived any applicable privilege regarding her therapy records and same shall be fully disclosed to the plain-
tiff. Further, as respecting possible modification, because of past issues of the defendant failing to comply with orders of the court; providing token compliance with orders of the court while ignoring the spirit and intent of the orders (including the orders dated December 1, 2010); the defendant’s lengthy pattern of contemptuous conduct; the expenses and financial waste caused by the defendant; the substantial financial drain on the resources of the plaintiff and the guardian ad litem caused by the defendant; the pattern of parental alienation; prior false reports of abuse and/or neglect to governmental entities; and the need for repose on the part of the minor child, it is anticipated that in addition to satisfaction of the foregoing conditions, no modification motion is permitted to be filed by defendant regarding the sole physical and/or sole legal custody arrangements, except in the case of the plaintiff’s total and permanent disability as determined by the Social Security Administration, unless the following conditions are satisfied. . .”
Eisenlohr v. Eisenlohr, 2011 WL 1566201 at *4 (Conn.Super.).

Walsh v. Walsh:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Having found that [defendant] father and son relationship has been damaged by the alienation of the child toward the defendant, the next logical step is to determine what the court must do to correct the situation. . . . ‘[Father’s motion to modify from joint custody to sole legal custody in his favor, granted; prohibitions of various alienating behaviors on the part of mother and her family; restrictions on mother’s attendance at doctor visits and parent-teacher conferences. Continuing individual therapy regimens for both parties and for child; etc.].’”
Walsh v. Walsh, 2011 WL 8199263 at *4 (Conn.Super. 2011).

<< Back