National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Canada: Alberta

Elliott v. Elliott:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Norrie expressed concern in two specific areas as regards Mr. Elliott’s parenting skills. The first related to the issue of what is described as parent alienation syndrome, wherein one parent attempts to alienate the child as against the other parent. [Primary residency of child transferred from father to mother.]”
Elliott v. Elliott, 1996 CarswellAlta 72 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, 1996) [¶ 18].

Rosenke v. Rosenke:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The mother’s actions have been identified for what they are: at least ‘passive resistance to the reconciliation process’ (Dr. Hindmarch), and at worst ‘moderate Parent Alienation Syndrome’ (Dr. Sneep). . . . The appeal of the father is allowed. The order of the chambers justice is overturned. We refer this case back to the Court of Queen’s Bench and require that it be subject to case management. We suggest that it would be appropriate for the father’s application to be for access not custody. We are not by this decision ruling that the chambers justice erred in not suspending maintenance payments. The issue of arrears and ongoing maintenance is best left to case management and the adjudication that will follow on access.”
Rosenke v. Rosenke, 1998 CarswellAlta 115, 1998 ABCA 81, 36 R.F.L. (4th) 288 (Alberta Court of Appeal 1998) [¶¶ 8, 10].

L. (M.J.) v. L. (D.J.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Hindmarch further testified that parent alienation has gone on for a long time and has been abetted by C.’s treatment regime. Dr. Hindmarch was unmoved by cross-examination. . . . I accept Dr. Hindmarch’s evidence and, like Dr. Hindmarch, it is my view that C. has been thoroughly alienated (by his mother) toward his father. [Access for father, to be conducted by qualified therapist, per plan devised by parties, or else by father.]”
L. (M.J.) v. L. (D.J.), 2000 CarswellAlta 460 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2000) [¶¶ 14-15].

Sears v. Sears:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“I accept Dr. Hindmarch’s opinion in this regard. He was very confident in the conclusion that he reached. He based his opinion on the totality of the evidence. He found this case to be quite unique. It was very ‘black and white’ for him. He did not have difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was a significant amount of parental alienation at work. His conclusion that Ms. Sears began a process of parent alienation against Mr. Sears is logical and abundantly supported by the evidence. [In this case mother’s ‘alienating’ conduct was cited as the cause of the children rebelling against her, and of one of them refusing to see her. Individual and then group counseling was ordered for the mother and the children.]”
Sears v. Sears, 2001 CarswellAlta 293, 2001 ABQB 214 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2001) [¶ 32].

Van de Veen v. Van de Veen:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Although the court is mindful that it must not lightly conclude that an access problem has been caused by parental alienation, the evidence of the children’s behaviour, of Ms. Van de Veen’s words and actions and the opinion of a custody and access expert establish beyond question that Ms. Van de Veen has alienated the children from their father. [Costs against mother.]”
Van de Veen v. Van de Veen, 2001 CarswellAlta 1147, 2001 ABQB 753, [2001] A.J. No. 1155, 300 A.R. 361 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2001) [¶ 4].

B. (S.L.) v. A. (G.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody removed from ♂ to foster care.

“During this trial the notion of parental alienation syndrome was discussed quite extensively. Ms. B. raised it as a real possibility. Mr. A. denied that it was present in this case. Mr. Fish, on behalf of D., asked a number of questions to establish whether or not it theoretically might exist in this case. The expert witnesses who were called to give evidence, Mr. Wilton, Mr. Hrushka, and Dr. Canniff were all asked about [parental alienation] syndrome and whether or not it played any role in this case. . . . I do not have to decide whether parental alienation syndrome does exist in this case. I have already made firm findings that there was no sexual assault. I have made firm findings that the belief that there was has been created by Mr. A. in his son’s mind. This intentional act upon his part is cruel beyond belief. Not only has he falsely accused a mother and sister of serious wrongdoing, he has convinced the alleged victim that the acts took place. He has deliberately attempted to influence the attitude and feelings that a young boy should have towards his mother and sister. This conduct is inexcusable. It is emotional and psychological abuse of the worst kind. The fact that this abuse has taken place inorder to obtain some advantage in a custody dispute compounds the seriousness of the matter. . . . The creation of the false belief by Mr. A. is unconscionable. To create a strong dislike and aversion in the mind of this young boy for his mother and sister when there is no rational basis for it is cruel and reprehensible conduct. It completely disregards the sacred responsibility a parent has to a child. [Child removed from father and placed temporarily in foster care, individual therapy ordered for mother, father and son.]”
B. (S.L.) v. A. (G.), 2003 CarswellAlta 1997, 2003 ABQB 302 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, 2003) [¶¶ 98, 101-02]

R. (F.D.) v. P. (M.D.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“I find that Dr. Fong’s conclusions fortify my view of the evidence and I conclude that there has been alienation by Mr. R. of T. from his mother. [Father took custody, removed the child to Saskatchewan, maintained sole custody with access for mother. Custody changed to mother in Alberta.]”
R. (F.D.) v. P. (M.D.), 2004 CarswellAlta 1743, 2004 ABQB 956 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2004) [¶ 122].

C. (D.B.) v. W. (R.M.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“By 2003, growing concern about parental alienation was the subject of comment by Martin J. . . . [H]e observed that [r]ather coincidentally, as their parents’ financial situation and divorce grew more tense the children began to enjoy their father’s company less. That deteriorated to the point that his visits were no longer being welcomed and, for almost the past year, the children have refused to see him altogether . . . On November 18, 2003, Martin J. found that DBC had chosen to reject his April direction as unworkable. He cautioned her that failure to follow his order might amount to contempt and indicated that he would address that later. He did so on July 27, 2004. In finding DBC in contempt, Martin J. observed that she had not made any sincere effort to have the children reconcile with RMW but rather had consciously or unconsciously alienated the children from their father. He left sanction for the contempt to me as the trial judge to deal with. . . . Six of the ten pre-trial motions addressed parenting issues. Of those eight motions, only one dealt solely with parenting matters. All others involved a combination of three issues: parenting, support and property. [O]ne-third of [the fees incurred by RMW on pre-trial motions to the date of the contempt finding], $27,060.00, together with indemnification for all fees that RMW paid to the children’s independent counsel, their counsellors and Dr. Amundson, is an appropriate sum for the costs sanction in this case . . . This amount is intended to substantially compensate RMW for his thrown-away costs on the parenting issues and to serve as an additional punishment for DBC. It is in addition to: Schedule C costs for the [four] motions that dealt with property or support questions . . . and . . . 2/3 of the Schedule C costs for the [six] motions that dealt with mixed questions (two motions August 16, 2002, September 3, 2002, January 10, 2003, January 31, 2003, November 13, 2003).”
C. (D.B.) v. W. (R.M.), 2005 CarswellAlta 2017, 2005 ABQB 898, 23 R.F.L. (6th) 120, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1182, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1180, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1176, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1175, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1184, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1181, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1178, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1177, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1172, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1173, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1251, [2006] A.W.L.D. 1271, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1240, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1220, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1201, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1195, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1253, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1222, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1205, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1203, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1185, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1187, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1292, 393 A.R. 160 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, 2005 [¶¶ 25, 27].

L. (R.A.) v. R. (R.D.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Even if the taped recordings had not been in evidence, based on the totality of the evidence, I would have reached the same conclusion about the father engaging in parental alienation. [Sole custody to the mother.]”
L. (R.A.) v. R. (R.D.), 2007 CarswellAlta 183, 2007 ABQB 79, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3055, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3050, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3088, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3091, [2007] A.W.L.D. 2707, [2007] A.W.L.D. 2705, [2007] A.W.L.D. 2715, [2007] A.W.L.D. 2716 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2007) [¶¶ 165, 192].

N. (L.) v. M. (S.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“An updated bilateral child custody evaluation was completed by [psychologist and custody evaluator Glenda] Lax on October 24, 2006. She evaluated the current custody arrangements and concluded that she was uncertain that the current custody arrangements were still in the best interests of the child. She identified an increasing concern about parental alienation by the father. . . . Nearly a year after the JDR, on November 14 and 15, 2006, Clark J. heard the trial dealing with the custody and access issues. He heard the viva voce evidence of the respondent, her daughter, the appellant, two close friends of the appellant, and Ms. Lax. In an oral judgment given on November 15, Clark J. concluded that the child was in danger of being alienated from his mother by the actions of his father. He granted sole custody and primary care of the child to the respondent, with reasonable and generous access to the appellant. [Appeal dismissed.]”
N. (L.) v. M. (S.), 2007 CarswellAlta 1080, 2007 ABCA 258, 79 Alta. L.R. (4th) 33, 284 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 43 R.F.L. (6th) 4, [2007] A.W.L.D. 3422, [2007] W.D.F.L. 4017, [2007] 12 W.W.R. 191, 412 A.R. 232, 404 W.A.C. 232 (Alberta Court of Appeal 2007) [¶¶ 49-50].

W. (S.L.) v. W. (W.N.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The materials have demonstrated that the children were being seriously and significantly alienated from their father by their mother’s behavior. Such a situation cried out for a change to salvage some possibility for the children to form a positive and loving relationship with their father and stepmother while retaining the loving relationship that they have with their mother. The only remaining judicial solution adequate to this task, on the evidence before me, was to have the children live with their father and provide access to their mother (a reverse of the situation that had been ongoing when the children’s primary residence was with their mother). An order to this effect was granted on April 10th, 2007 and is the subject of this application. [Application for stay denied.]”
W. (S.L.) v. W. (W.N.), 2007 CarswellAlta 875, 2007 ABQB 420, [2007] A.W.L.D. 3851, [2007] W.D.F.L. 4526 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2007) [¶ 14].

S. (T.) v. T. (A.V.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The trial judge found that the father’s extended family was involved in behaviours that were described by the psychologist as alienating. The psychologist’s evidence was that the ongoing efforts by the father to alienate the child from the mother might thwart the natural growth of the child’s attachment and, in turn, hinder the child’s normal development. [Primary parental decision-making and primary residence to the father.]”
S. (T.) v. T. (A.V.), 2008 CarswellAlta 353, 2008 ABQB 185, [2008] A.W.L.D. 2270, [2008] A.W.L.D. 2272, [2008] A.W.L.D. 2274, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2788, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2793, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2782, 53 R.F.L. (6th) 368, 438 A.R. 113, 166 A.C.W.S. (3d) 510 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2008) [¶ 126].

M. (R.V.) v. L. (W.F.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“It is clear to me that the mother is the friendly parent, as defined in the jurisprudence, while the father has placed considerable and consistent barriers between mother and child. The father is not to be rewarded for hurting his child. The child is at psychological risk if alienation from the mother continues. [Custody returned from father to mother, transfer to be enforced by police.]”
M. (R.V.) v. L. (W.F.), 2009 CarswellAlta 315, 2009 ABQB 138, [2009] A.W.L.D. 1854, [2009] A.W.L.D. 1856, [2009] A.W.L.D. 1866, [2009] W.D.F.L. 2183, [2009] W.D.F.L. 2196, [2009] W.D.F.L. 2269 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2009) [¶ 87].

Adams v. Adams:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Joint custody to target parent: ♀

“The Plaintiff only discovered that the children had been interviewed by Mr. Ruff and also coached into secrecy about it when Dr. Fong referenced it in his report. In his Report, Dr. Fong suggested that the expression of the children’s wishes could not be relied upon given the tainting which had occurred. Despite this, Dr. Fong advised the Court that in his opinion the children were reasonably content with their present parenting arrangement and considered their home to be with their mother. . . . The potential harm to the children was not acknowledged and in cross examination, the Defendant disclosed little insight into the fact that this was the very thing the protocol sought to avoid. In this Court’s view, this is a clear example of parental alienation assisted by the Defendant’s counsel. [Overnights 9:5 in favor of the Plaintiff, with ‘all decisions regarding the education, health, religion, activities and general well being of the children’ going to the Plaintiff.]”
Adams v. Adams, 2011 CarswellAlta 948, 2011 ABQB 306, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3470, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3467, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3465, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3462, [2011] W.D.F.L. 4569, [2011] W.D.F.L. 4539, [2011] W.D.F.L. 4519, [2011] W.D.F.L. 4583, 5 R.F.L. (7th) 258, 53 Alta. L.R. (5th) 20 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2011) [¶¶ 42-43, 53].

W. (L.D.) v. M. (K.D.):

Alienating Parents: ♀♂ — Custody to target parents: ♀♂

“I have concluded that some but not all indications of parental alienation exist between W and L. The same is true as between A and M. It appears to me further that neither parent has intended these outcomes, but both have contributed to it in each case. [Sole custody of one child to one parent, one child to the other.]”
W. (L.D.) v. M. (K.D.), 2011 CarswellAlta 1032, 2011 ABQB 384, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3905, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3904, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3902, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3899, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3894, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3893, [2011] A.W.L.D. 3891, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5145, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5139, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5128, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5117, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5081, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5077, [2011] W.D.F.L. 5064, 508 A.R. 335 (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench 2011) [¶¶ 90, 124-25].

Canada: British Columbia

Panzer v. Rayo:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Allan Posthuma, a clinical psychologist specializing in problems associated with family relationships and child development, conducted extensive interviews and tests with the parents. He also observed each parent interact with the child. His conclusions warrant repeating: ‘The child, Franklin Rayo, appears to be a fairly well adjusted 7 year old who is functioning satisfactorily in school and in his community. There would appear, on the basis of this interview, a concerted effort on the part of his mother to alienate his relationship with his father.’ [Nevertheless: child allowed to move with the mother away from the father. Sole custody to mother, irregular access to father.]”
Panzer v. Rayo, 1992 CarswellBC 1339, [1992] W.D.F.L. 966 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1992) [¶ 12].

Tomlin v. Tomlin:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Rosen talked about the phenomenon of parental alienation, one parent alienating the child from another parent. . . . Dr. Rosen said that to say the children were not coached does not mean that they were not influenced. All she could say is that she did not have the impression that they had been coached. She said that it was unusual for children to state a preference just to keep the peace in the family, especially children of this age. That was not her impression in this case. However, she would be in a better position to make an assessment if she had done a full custody and access investigation. . . . She said the fact that the children expressed their views to her should be enough to alert the court about the children’s desires, and possibly Dr. Krywaniuk might consider re-interviewing the children. [Access granted to the father.]”
Tomlin v. Tomlin, 1992 CarswellBC 212, 69 B.C.L.R. (2d) 363 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1992) [¶¶ 73-75].

Farden v. Farden:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The son has refused to consider any sort of relationship with his father. I conclude from the reasons of His Honour Judge Hyde that the father was not guilty of any conduct which disentitled him to access. The trial judge found as a fact that the mother had alienated the son from the affection of his father. As a boy he may have had little control over the situation. However, he is now an adult. He shows a total unwillingness to attempt to reinstate any relationship. He would be content to take money from his father but otherwise refuses to acknowledge him as a parent. In my view, this is an additional factor which I can take into account in dismissing the application [for child support from father for a period during which son to be supported was sixteen years old, attending a post-secondary educational institution, working a parttime job]. . . The application is dismissed.”
Farden v. Farden, 1993 CarswellBC 619, 48 R.F.L. (3d) 60, 40 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1122 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1993) [¶¶ 19-20].

Crandlemire v. Crandlemire:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Access expanded for target parent: ♀

“Despite the evidence of Ms. Platt, Ms. Halkett, Mr. Elterman and Mr. Cehak that Robby loves his mother, is not afraid of her and wants to spend time with her, Mr. Crandlemire says he doesn’t know if Robby loves her and that Robby is afraid of her. Despite the evidence of all of these witnesses that Robby needs to spend more time with his mother, Mr. Crandlemire prefers to leave Robby in the care of paid caregivers. Although I am satisfied that Mr. Crandlemire loves his son, it is equally clear that he sees alienation of Robby from Ms. Kuester as a way of punishing her for her infidelity during the marriage. He has been willing to use his son as a weapon. [Continued expansion of access to the mother.]”
Crandlemire v. Crandlemire, 1996 CarswellBC 1378 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1996) [¶ 52].

Pierce v. van Loon:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“I accept Dr. Angus’ observation that the defendant has indulged in parental alienation, permitting her anger at Mr. Pierce to influence Jana’s perceptions of him. [Mother not to cause daughter to reside outside the jurisdiction without further order. Small tweaks to the custody schedule.]”
Pierce v. van Loon, 1997 CarswellBC 689, (British Columbia Supreme Court 1997) [¶ 27].

Decker v. Atkinson:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Increased access to target parent: ♂

“[T]here is evidence of alienation of their son from the Respondent by the Petitioner. This may be no more than a reflection of the Petitioner’s not unreasonable anger toward the Respondent—something that works both ways between this couple who are not star crossed but stars in collision. . . . For whatever cause, there is distrust by Aaron towards his father. That needs to be displaced before there can be free access. . . . In the interim, access will take place only in the presence of the Respondent’s mother with whom Aaron is familiar and to whom I see no reasonable objection. I am unwilling to set terms that do not fit her normal routine. . . . Access will be for a six hour period weekly, alternating Saturdays and Sundays. . . . The parties are at liberty to make other access arrangements but only by mutual agreement through counsel. . . . The parties each proposed an access schedule. The order is for somewhat more than the Petitioner sought; considerably less than the Respondent asked.”
Decker v. Atkinson, 1998 CarswellBC 257 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1998) [¶¶ 31-36].

Mitchell v. Mitchell:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“I am troubled that directly, as well as subtly or indirectly, Mr. Mitchell appears to be negatively influencing Cord’s relationship with his mother and alienating Cord from his mother. [Divided primary custody of two children maintained, father’s petition to change custody of daughter to himself denied.]”
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 1998 CarswellBC 1564, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1684 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1998) [¶ 82].

B. (A.D.) v. B. (E.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Some telephone conversations between Ms. B. and the children were taped during this three week period. Concerns were raised about continued alienation based primarily on those conversations. Dr. Elterman was asked to review the tapes. In a letter dated November 2, 1996, he expressed the opinion that the conversations between Ms. B. and the children ‘revealed an interpersonal dynamic called Parental Alienation.’ He said that if she continued to behave in this way, it was improbable that the children would ever have a normal relationship with Mr. B. under the existing arrangement. [Case set for trial.]”
B. (A.D.) v. B. (E.), 1999 CarswellBC 2530 (British Columbia Supreme Court [In Chambers] 1999) [¶ 13].

Sanders v. Kay:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“In my view, there have been two material changes in circumstances since the 1994 trial. The first is that Ms. Sanders has gone from a woman with her drinking problem under control for a considerable period of time to a woman who has recently put her children at risk by her drinking. The second change in circumstances is that Ms. Sanders has damaged the emotional health of her daughters, especially Natasha. In addition to her drinking, the evidence is that she has done this by alienating her daughters against their father and by causing Natasha’s identity to become enmeshed with her own personality. [Custody changed from mother to father.]”
Sanders v. Kay, 1999 CarswellBC 993 (British Columbia Supreme Court 1999) [¶ 34].

McIndoe v. O’Connell:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The plaintiff’s application for custody led to a trial which took place in August of 1998. The learned trial judge found that the children had been alienated from their mother by their father but, given Daniel’s age at that time, the plaintiff’s application for custody of Daniel was refused and the previous consent order that Daniel was to have access visits with his mother and attend counseling was set aside. The plaintiff was, however, granted custody of Craig with no access to the defendant for two months, to the 1st of October 1998, and access thereafter for limited periods. The learned trial judge also ordered that Craig was to see a counselor or therapist commencing immediately. [Custody switched to mother for a four-month period; child ran away repeatedly; court revisited custody and gave it back to father, but ordered counseling. counseling not undertaken. No change of circumstances for custody purposes found.]”
McIndoe v. O’Connell, 2000 CarswellBC 1031, 2000 BCSC 726 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2000) [¶ 7].

Clifford v. Clifford:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Joint custody to target parent: ♀

“In December, 2000, Arlene Clifford left a 15 year marriage to Rory Clifford. She attempted to take her three children with her to a transition home. Her son Russell refused to join her. Her two daughters, Vanessa and Melissa, became so upset Ms. Clifford determined that it would be best to leave the children in the care of Mr. Clifford. . . . The two older children, Russell and Vanessa, are alienated from their mother, refusing all contact in Russell’s case and almost all meaningful contact in Vanessa’s. The younger child, Melissa, spends about three weekends per month with her mother. . . . Ms. Clifford now applies for sole custody and guardianship of Melissa on the grounds that Mr. Clifford has alienated the two oldest children from her and as a consequence of his continuing conduct, there is a substantial likelihood that Melissa will be similarly alienated. . . . It is unfortunate that the three Clifford children have not been insulated from the tense and acrimonious conflict between Mr. and Ms. Clifford and that Russell and Vanessa have become estranged from their mother. Mr. Clifford must now encourage Melissa and his other children to renew and re-establish a loving relationship with their mother. If at the time this order is reviewed, I find that Melissa continues to be in danger of being alienated from her mother, because of conduct of Mr. Clifford, I will consider terminating access to her father. [Joint custody ordered.]”
Clifford v. Clifford, 2002 CarswellBC 2211, 2002 BCSC 1325 (B.C. S.C. [In Chambers] 2002) [¶¶ 1-3, 25].

C. (A.J.) v. C. (R.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody from foster care to alienator: ♂

“In June, 2001, [mother] Ms. F. brought on an application to, inter alia, vary access to the children by [father] Mr. C. from unsupervised to supervised. The matter was heard by Mr. Justice Slade in June, 2001. . . . A psychologist testified (not Dr. Elterman) and said that [older child, daughter] C.C. was ‘the most extreme case of parent alienation syndrome’ that she had seen. The psychologist opined that Mr. C. was manipulating C.C., and C.C. was in turn manipulating [younger child, son] R.C. and turning them against Ms. F. [Father asked for custody of daughter, now abandoned to foster care: granted, after a period and upon preconditions. Mother’s application to deny father’s access to son dismissed.]”
C. (A.J.) v. C. (R.), 2003 CarswellBC 1172, 2003 BCSC 664 (British Columbia Supreme Court, 2003) [¶ 18].

Bjorge v. Bjorge:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Ms. Brown concluded in her report that Zachary had been alienated from his father. I concur and emphasize that Mr. Grison does not seem to exhibit any awareness of the importance of Zachary’s relationship with his father. . . . I decline to reduce Zachary’s access time with his father as he wishes, although I would also decline to implement the recommendation for week-on, week-off access contained in Ms. Brown’s report. I find it likely that this change will cause excessive stress to Zachary at this time. This is due in part to parental alienation, but I find that Zachary is bonded to his mother, cares for her deeply, and generally enjoys his time with her. I am satisfied that the current access schedule ought to be continued. I do adopt Ms. Brown’s recommendations for summer access.”
Bjorge v. Bjorge, 2004 CarswellBC 1046, 2004 BCSC 596 (British Columbia Supreme Court, 2004) [¶¶ 27, 35].

Soobotin v. Soobotin:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“This is a most difficult and unhappy situation. I accept that, from the point of view of their academic life, the children are doing very well in High Level. They have a stable home life with Mr. Soobotin. They live with their two older siblings. The significant problem that continues to present itself is Mr. Soobotin’s failure to foster a positive relationship with Ms. Soobotin. More than that, I accept that he continues to attempt to poison that relationship. . . . The dilemma is whether to remove two of four siblings from a home where, by all accounts, they are doing well because, to leave them there will almost certainly lead to their continued, and probably ultimately total alienation from their mother. In my reasons of October 3, 2003, I noted that issues of custody must be viewed from the perspective of what is in best interests of the children. . . . I conclude that the best interests of Roland and Shandi will be served by being placed in the interim custody of Ms. Soobotin. However, to minimize the impact on the children of moving to a new community, I direct that this be effective July 1, 2005. I also direct that a further review take place before the end of June 2006 so that I may assess whether the change in the custody of the children has been, in fact, in their best interests.”
Soobotin v. Soobotin, 2004 CarswellBC 3192, 2004 BCSC 1738 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2004) [¶¶ 9, 11, 14].

C. (A.J.) v. C. (R.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Goldsmith testified that C.C. suffered from parental alienation syndrome. Other experts before me (Dr. Elterman and Dr. Korpach) have testified that the research does not support such an identifiable syndrome. However, the conduct of C.C. and her father suggests manipulation of C.C. by the father, which resulted in C.C. having considerable animosity towards her mother and being aligned with her father. . . . I order that C.C. remain in the custody of her mother, A.J.F. C.C. has no desire to see her father and therefore I will not order access. There is no point in a court ordering a 15-year-old to see a parent against her wishes. When she is ready to see her father and reestablish a relationship with him, she will. . . . The father may communicate with C.C., if she wishes, by MSN Messenger or email. He may not telephone her. He may write letters to her. Copies of all correspondence are to be maintained by R.C. and produced to the mother on request.”
C. (A.J.) v. C. (R.), 2006 CarswellBC 2177, 2006 BCSC 1336, [2006] W.D.F.L. 3813, [2006] W.D.F.L. 3783, [2006] W.D.F.L. 3787, [2006] B.C.W.L.D. 6400, [2006] B.C.W.L.D. 6397, [2006] B.C.W.L.D. 6398 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2006) [¶¶ 17, 78-79].

G. (C.J.) v. G. (R.C.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The father has not actively tried to alienate his children from the mother. In contrast, the mother has alienated M from his father through a persistent course of conduct that was designed to achieve that goal as well as the further alienation of both children from the father’s extended family. [Full custody to father, access to the mother.]”
G. (C.J.) v. G. (R.C.), 2007 CarswellBC 215, 2007 BCSC 161, [2007] B.C.W.L.D. 4401, [2007] B.C.W.L.D. 4399, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3272, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3262 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2007) [¶ 56].

A. (A.) v. A. (S.N.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Korpach stated that although there was no question both parents loved M, it was her impression Mr. A had ‘the greater capacity to consider M’s needs, and have an awareness of dynamics which may affect M, to a significantly greater degree than does Ms. A.’ In her analysis: While Mr [A.] lacks more recent day-to-day parenting experience, I see him as being more amenable to professional intervention and advice. It is my opinion that [M] will require therapeutic intervention to assist her in resolving the emotional abuse which has been inflicted through her mother’s alienation and to resolve her attachment disorder [emphasis in original, apart from that setting off the word ‘alienation’]. . . . The trial judge was indeed faced with a ‘stark dilemma’—albeit one created largely by the custodial parent. He was obviously aware that he was required to ‘focus’ on M’s best interests. He carefully reviewed the evidence and made clear findings of fact. As has been seen, these findings militated almost exclusively against the mother’s continuing as the custodial parent. Yet at the end of the day, the trial judge chose to leave M in a situation that he said would be detrimental to her in the long run and indeed had ‘already been detrimental to her’. He found that this damage, which would almost surely continue, was preferable to making the ‘fundamental change’ that Dr. Krywaniuk had stated was necessary. Expressing regret regarding the ‘inability’ of the Court to manage the results of the forcible removal of the child from her mother. The trial judge deferred to a ‘highly manipulative’ and ‘intransigent’ parent who would clearly never permit her child to have any sort of relationship with her father. . . . We are of the view that in so concluding, the trial judge erred in law. We agree with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge wrongly focused on the likely difficulties of a change in custody—which the only evidence on the subject indicates will be short-term and not ‘devastating’—and failed to give paramountcy to M.’s long-term interests. Instead, damage which is long-term and almost certain was preferred over what may be a risk, but a risk that seems necessary if M is to have a chance to develop normally in her adolescent years. [Appeal granted.]”
A. (A.) v. A. (S.N.), 2007 CarswellBC 1591, 2007 BCCA 363, [2007] B.C.W.L.D. 4400, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3264, 40 R.F.L. (6th) 248, 243 B.C.A.C. 301, 401 W.A.C. 301 (British Columbia Court of Appeal 2007) [¶¶ 20, 26].

Frith v. Frith:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“As the transcript . . . reveals, the chambers judge’s focus was on the lack of effort on the mother’s part ‘to normalize the relationship with the father’ and what he concluded were her attempts to alienate their daughters from their father subsequent to Dr. La Torre’s second report. [Mother found in contempt by lower court, appeal dismissed.]”
Frith v. Frith, 2008 CarswellBC 4, 2008 BCCA 2, [2008] B.C.W.L.D. 1557, [2008] W.D.F.L. 1326, 47 R.F.L. (6th) 286, 289 D.L.R. (4th) 337, 163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 417, 250 B.C.A.C. 57, 416 W.A.C. 57 (British Columbia Court of Appeal 2008) [¶ 12].

P. (M.) v. M. (N.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“In all the circumstances, I am convinced that the defendant has engaged in parental alienation and that the child’s response to her father amply demonstrates that. [Custody and guardianship to the father.]”
P. (M.) v. M. (N.), 2008 CarswellBC 2544, 2008 BCSC 1501, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 923, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 917, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 920, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 932, [2009] W.D.F.L. 599, [2009] W.D.F.L. 555, [2009] W.D.F.L. 567, [2009] W.D.F.L. 574, 63 R.F.L. (6th) 38 (British Columbia Supreme Court [In Chambers] 2008) [¶ 126].

S. (R.R.W.E.) v. V. (S.E.D.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to (start with) target parent: ♂

“Dr. Korpach clearly sets out in her report that her mandate was to conduct a risk assessment respecting both parents to determine whether, in her view, there had been any sexual abuse or parental alienation. Based on her conclusions on those primary issues, Dr. Korpach was to make appropriate recommendations. While this role may overlap somewhat with the subject matter of a parenting assessment, it was not carried out for the same purpose and was much more extensive than a typical parenting assessment. . . . Dr. Korpach presented at trial as a careful and responsive professional witness. . . . I reject the mother’s proposed parenting plan. If I permitted the children to primarily reside with her and attend the school next door where the mother teaches, the children would be at risk of complete alienation from the father. That emotional harm would more than offset any environmental advantages associated with living in the mother’s home and attending school nearby. On the other hand, the father has reasonably consistently followed through on his obligation to facilitate maximum contact between the children and their mother. [Continued: joint custody, principal residence with the father.]”
S. (R.R.W.E.) v. V. (S.E.D.), 2008 CarswellBC 1766, 2008 BCSC 1136, [2008] B.C.W.L.D. 6679, [2008] W.D.F.L. 4366, 60 R.F.L. (6th) 79 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2008) [¶¶ 216, 218, 225].

T. (L.M.) v. T. (R.S.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Waterman’s critique of Dr. Burima’s report outlined a number of concerns with Dr. Burima’s methodology. . . . One of the main concerns was that Dr. Burima did not address parental alienation. Dr. Waterman said that any time the possibility of parental alienation is raised in assessments of this kind, it is generally considered appropriate to assess for it and to provide an opinion to the court as to whether or not it is occurring. . . . Dr. Burima said that because of time and budgetary constraints, and because parental alienation was not raised as a specific concern, she did not specifically deal with it. . . . There is, in my opinion, good reason to be concerned that the children are being pressured and beginning to suffer from parental alienation. . . . [Joint custody maintained, but care and control to alternate with custody.]”
T. (L.M.) v. T. (R.S.), 2008 CarswellBC 1540, 2008 BCSC 890, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 1282, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 1283, [2009] W.D.F.L. 844, [2009] W.D.F.L. 854 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2008) [¶¶ 196-99].

B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“I had the opportunity, as did both counsel, to ask Dr. Fidler questions. Dr. Fidler was asked whether it would be possible to have counseling without a change in custody and without an order that the father would have no access or contact with the children. She indicated that, based on her experience, therapy and counseling do not work in cases of severe parental alienation and in some cases of moderate parental alienation, if the child continues to have contact with the favoured parent. In her opinion, there needs to be a period of no contact to enable the child to build a relationship with the rejected parent. . . . I do not question Dr. Fidler’s expertise in cases of parental alienation. However, if I were to rely on her evidence in making the proposed order, I would be doing precisely what I determined was an error by the arbitrator, that is, I would be relying on general evidence as to remedies for parental alienation without reference to the particular needs and circumstances of J.B.”
B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.), 2009 CarswellOnt 2660, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3145, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 103 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 32-33].

Bains v. Bains:

Alienating Parent: ♂♀ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Korpach’s conclusions . . . support a finding of parental alienation. [Access pursuant to divorce: custody with the mother, supervised access for the father, counseling for children and father.]”
Bains v. Bains, 2009 CarswellBC 3282, 2009 BCSC 1666, [2010] B.C.W.L.D. 1866, [2010] B.C.W.L.D. 1849, [2010] W.D.F.L. 985, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1044 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2009) [¶ 145].

G. (D.L.) v. G. (R.A.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — (Interim) custody to alienator: ♀

“In addition to Dr. Elterman’s written reports, which were filed as exhibits, Dr. Elterman also testified at trial in February and in September 2008. He explained parental alienation as a process. [Interim custody for mother/alienator; access for father. Finding of contempt against mother.]”
G. (D.L.) v. G. (R.A.), 2009 CarswellBC 1356, 2009 BCSC 687, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5194, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5200, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5203, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5206, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5212, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5217, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3360, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3368, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3302, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3321, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3332, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3348 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2009) [¶ 45].

G. (M.) v. G. (D.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to alienator: ♀

“Whatever the cause, it is clear that their daughter has become alienated from her father. The convictions of the Plaintiff are firm. The frustration of the Defendant is evident. The alienation of their daughter from her father is profound. The cause of that alienation is in dispute. . . . Dr. Aubé came to the conclusion that there had been parental alienation . . . the parties and their daughter be referred to a clinical counselor experienced in psychoanalytic child therapy so that the recommendation of that counselor can guide the parties and their daughter back to a healthier relationship between mother and daughter and father and daughter. . . . In the interim, I see no useful purpose in continuing the supervised access, as it has resulted in absolutely no communication or relationship between father and daughter. In fact, I find that these visits have harmed the relationship between father and daughter. Access will be removed until the new counselor is in the position to recommend that it be resumed and, if resumed, the nature of access, including telephone access and personal access with or without supervision.”
G. (M.) v. G. (D.), 2009 CarswellBC 1629, 2009 BCSC 809, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5440, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5444, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5460, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5467, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 5487, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3530, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3442, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3462, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3401, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3411 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2009) [¶¶ 3, 53, 60, 63].

Lien v. Lorenz:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“It is not mere speculation that the mother may be acting to alienate the father contrary to the interests of the child. . . . There is much to support a conclusion that the mother has, for reasons unrelated to the interests of the child, acted to prevent her from having the benefit of her father’s presence in her life. This is contrary to the child’s interests. In these circumstances, the only appropriate remedy is the order sought by the father. I order that Steffany be in the sole custody and guardianship of her father, Steven John Lorenz, and his mother, Joan Lorenz.”
Lien v. Lorenz, 2009 CarswellBC 670, 2009 BCSC 359, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 2510, [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 2553, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1683, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1727 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2009) [¶¶ 52, 56].

P. (M.) v. M. (N.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“[In P. (M.) v. M. (N.) [I], 2008 CarswellBC 2544,] I granted custody and guardianship to the father, with very limited access to the mother, because I was convinced that the defendant was engaged in parental alienation. . . . I therefore order that special costs are to be assessed by the registrar with the intent of providing compensation as close to the actual costs incurred. This includes disbursements.”
P. (M.) v. M. (N.), 2009 CarswellBC 76 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2009) [¶¶ 26, 31].

Horvat v. Cross:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“We are left at this point with the only objective evidence being that of Dr. Elterman, who is appointed by the court and has extensive, well recognized qualifications. We have a critique of this report from Dr. Waterman, who unfortunately has not met either the children or the parents and can only suggest possible matters that might lead to different conclusions or might have turned up different evidence. Of particular importance in Dr. Elterman’s report is his view that there is a risk of parental alienation, which is a matter that the courts are becoming increasingly concerned about, as discussed by Madam Justice Martinson in the A. case. [Sole custody of the younger child to the father in accordance with Dr. Elterman’s recommendations.]”
Horvat v. Cross, 2010 CarswellBC 2817, 2010 BCSC 1472, [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 490, [2011] W.D.F.L. 357 (British Columbia Supreme Court [In Chambers] 2010). [¶ 3]

Lower v. Stasiuk:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Here, I find it most disturbing that even after the publication of Dr. Elterman’s report and finding of alienation, there is no evidence that the defendant [mother] has accepted the findings of Dr. Elterman and there is no evidence that she has taken any steps whatsoever to change her behaviour towards the child. The long-term psychological effect that ‘splitting’ will have on this child when she reaches adolescence is clearly pointed out by Dr. Korpach and Dr. Elterman. [Worsening of PA a material change of circumstances, sole custody to the father.]”
Lower v. Stasiuk, 2010 CarswellBC 2035, 2010 BCSC 1081, [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 492, [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 491, [2011] B.C.W.L.D. 489, [2011] W.D.F.L. 369, [2011] W.D.F.L. 358, [2011] W.D.F.L. 345 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2010). [¶¶ 83, 95, 100].

S. (I.M.M.) v. S. (D.J.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“It seems that the defendant either does not want to or cannot change his alienating behaviours. . . . It is clear from these authorities [discussion of which is not quoted here] that if one parent is significantly more willing to work to foster the children’s relationship with the other parent, this factor weighs heavily in favour of that parent being awarded custody. . . . For these reasons, I have decided that the plaintiff is to have sole custody of the children and guardianship remains to be shared jointly between the parties.”
S. (I.M.M.) v. S. (D.J.), 2010 CarswellBC 538, 2010 BCSC 306, [2010] B.C.W.L.D. 4666, [2010] W.D.F.L. 2722, 83 R.F.L. (6th) 333 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2010) [¶¶ 99, 139, 147].

T. (L.M.) v. T. (R.S.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The reasons for judgment of Shabbits J. paint a picture of two parents who went from a good relationship during their marriage, to a workable relationship immediately after their separation, which devolved to highly acrimonious conflict beginning October 31, 2003, and lasting through to the trial. . . . I bear in mind throughout, the observations of Shabbits J. at paras. 199 to 203 of his reasons: ‘[199] There is, in my opinion, good reason to be concerned that the children are being pressured and beginning to suffer from parental alienation.’ [Mother’s application for supervision of father’s access to children and restricting father’s alienating behavior largely granted.]”
T. (L.M.) v. T. (R.S.), 2010 CarswellBC 436, 2010 BCSC 242, [2010] B.C.W.L.D. 3168, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1766 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2010). [¶¶ 1, 51-52, 69-78]

B. (N.) v. E. (L.M.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“At page 21 of his report, Dr. Krywaniuk concluded: ‘It is quite evident to me that the children are alienated from N.B. and that the concerns they express are largely not their own. Consequently, it is difficult to get at the true reality behind their experiences. However, the alienation process is quite clear and the (children) present with classic symptoms of alienation that are prompt ed by coaching or possibly overhearing things being said.’ I agree with Dr. Krywaniuk’s assessment that T.L.B. and M.A.B. display classic symptoms of parental alienation. I find that the effective agent of that alienation has been L.M.E. That is not to say that she coached them deliberately to say things. However, I have concerns about her mental health and her ability to parent. [Sole custody to N.B., supervised visitation w/ re-integration therapist for L.M.E.]”
B. (N.) v. E. (L.M.), 2011 CarswellBC 3036, 2011 BCPC 284, 208 A.C.W.S. (3d) 527, [2012] B.C.W.L.D. 3178, [2012] W.D.F.L. 2413 (British Columbia Provincial Court 2011). [¶¶ 99, 132-34]

D. (J.) v. P. (Y.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“In Dr. Aube’s letter of April 29, 2010 to Y.P. she provided a critique of Ms. Fenton’s report: ‘I understand the court order by Madam Justice Ker, dated August 21, 2009, indicated that the author of the section 15 report should “explore the possibility (or not) of parental alienation playing a role in this matter.” Unfortunately this aspect is not covered or mentioned in Ms. Fenton’s report. This appears to me to be an essential aspect that has been completely omitted. . . . It would have been important to review if S.D. had been allowed, emotionally, to be involved in her father’s life. Similarly, it would have been interesting to explore from what stems S.D.’s fears of connecting with her father.’ It is clear from Dr. Aube’s April 29, 2010 letter and her July 14, 2010 report that neither she nor Ms. Fenton addressed the issues of parental alienation. Y.P. was not involved in any of sessions preparatory for her report. She appears to have had some contact with J.D. during this assessment but quite clearly did not deal with the sources of S.D.’s fears of connecting with her father and the issue of parental alienation. . . . I am satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances since the order of Crawford J. in February 2006. It is difficult to conceive that between the ages of five and ten a child could, without the influence of external factors, have become so fearful and disinterested in her father. . . . J.D. says parental alien-
ation is an obsession only in Y.P.’s mind and that further investigations are not welcome by S.D. and will not be productive. She asserts that parental alienation has been dealt with; I conclude she is wrong in this assertion. . . . The prospect of parental alienation is one issue that Madam Justice Ker concluded was important; she made this order and the failure to obtain a study of this child as directed in that order is unfortunate. . . . In the result, I will adjourn J.D.’s application pending receipt of a section 15 report that address-
es the question of parental alienation as an influence in S.D.’s life.”
D. (J.) v. P. (Y.), 2011 CarswellBC 2421, 2011 BCSC 1237, 207 A.C.W.S. (3d) 104, [2012] B.C.W.L.D. 1088, [2012] B.C.W.L.D. 1077, [2012] B.C.W.L.D. 1069, [2012] B.C.W.L.D. 1067, [2012] W.D.F.L. 932, [2012] W.D.F.L. 900, [2012] W.D.F.L. 875, [2012] W.D.F.L. 882 (British Columbia Supreme Court 2011) [¶¶ 25-26, 35-37].

Canada: Manitoba

H. (S.A.) v. L. (A.D.S.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Opochinsky’s two reports and his expert evidence at trial provide considerable assistance. He focussed on the allegations of sexual abuse and the principle of the mother alienating the children. In most cases I have accepted his recommendations. [Custody to the mother, supervised access to the father.]”
H. (S.A.) v. L. (A.D.S.), 1998 CarswellMan 327, 130 Man. R. (2d) 27, [1998] M.J. No. 330 (Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, 1998) [¶ 53].

Shindela v. Shindela:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“It is clear on the evidence that the present custodial/access arrangement results in almost unbearable stress and conflict for the children (and those around them) and will ultimately and inescapably lead to the children’s alienation from the mother. . . . This sad state of affairs is solely due to the father, who has gone to considerable lengths to undermine the smooth working of this arrangement, and whose hatred of the mother has poisoned any chance of stress-free time sharing of the children’s lives. [Change from primary to sole custody with the mother, father’s access reduced.]”
Shindela v. Shindela, 2002 CarswellMan 108, 2002 MBQB 73, 162 Man. R. (2d) 199 (Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench 2002) [¶¶ 33-34].

L. (T.L.L.) v. L. (J.J.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The mother has successfully alienated all three boys. Her own behaviour and her own unusual anxieties have told them in every way, both overtly and covertly that they are not safe with their father. She has consistently interfered with the parental bond between the boys and their father. She has perverted their father/son love. She has substituted her belief system for theirs, and created a world of anxiety and fear for her sons, much like the mother’s own world. All three boys are the victims of her emotional abuse. [Custody from joint to sole custody of father, with supervised access for the mother; contempt issue postponed until ‘fall session’ with a warning to the mother.]”
L. (T.L.L.) v. L. (J.J.), 2009 CarswellMan 288, 2009 MBQB 148, [2009] W.D.F.L. 4572, [2009] W.D.F.L. 4622, 72 R.F.L. (6th) 167 (Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench 2009) [¶¶ 48, 93].

C. (S.) v. C. (A.S.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Ever since their separation in 2004, these parties have had a long history of disputes regarding the custody of their three children. In 2006, a psychologist, Dr. Golfman, and a social worker, Ms Frankel, completed an extensive assessment of the situation. Their report and testimony at trial formed an important basis for the judge’s conclusion at the 2008 trial that the father was deliberately alienating the children from their mother. While the judge ordered primary care and control to the father, she did so on condition that the father hire a reunification expert and encourage access between the children and their mother. . . . That access did not take place. At a second trial in 2010, the reunification expert, Ms Mercedes, testified that the father was not cooperating. The judge changed custody of the youngest child from the father to the mother. It is this judgment that is the subject of the notice of appeal. [Motion to extend time to perfect appeal dismissed.]”
C. (S.) v. C. (A.S.), 2011 CarswellMan 443, 2011 MBCA 70, 2 R.F.L. (7th) 30, 268 Man. R. (2d) 282, 206 A.C.W.S. (3d) 461 (Manitoba Court of Appeal [In Chambers] 2011) [¶ 11].

L. (T.L.L.) v. L. (J.J.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“After a two-week trial at which both parties were self-represented, a different trial judge concluded that the appellant had engaged in a ceaseless and deliberate campaign to alienate the children from the respondent, including making numerous baseless allegations of sexual abuse. This understandably resulted in serious harm to the children’s best interests. In the result, she granted the respondent sole custody of the children with conditions. A finding of contempt was also made.”
L. (T.L.L.) v. L. (J.J.), 2011 CarswellMan 18, 2011 MBCA 10, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1372, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1445, 262 Man. R. (2d) 124, 507 W.A.C. 124 (Manitoba Court of Appeal 2011) [¶ 3].

Kitt v. Kitt:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to (continuous with) target parent: ♀

“The father has made ongoing efforts to alienate the children from the mother. His communications with his children have been directed to undermining their relationship with their mother. A child should not be forced by either parent to choose the parent who will be their primary caregiver. The father, in pursuing his desire to have primary physical care and control of the children has placed the children in this position. Compared to the father, the mother has displayed a greater willingness to facilitate contact with the parent who does not have primary physical care and control. [Primary physical care and control to continue with the mother.]”
Kitt v. Kitt, 2011 CarswellMan 471, 2011 MBQB 208, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1027, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1024, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1008, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1007, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1020, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1005, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1004, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1003 (Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench 2011). [¶ 27]

M. (L.M.A.) v. M. (C.P.):

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The critical conclusion about this family offered by Dr. Stambrook in his Report is as follows: ‘While both parents present with love and concern for their children, it is clear to me that the children have been in a situation where they have been systematically alienated from their mother by their father, and here the evidence for this is strong.’. . . I am left without any doubt whatsoever of [father’s] wilful breach of both court orders, his having undertaken a campaign over many weeks and months (which timeframe I will further particularize in a moment) to alienate the three children from their mother, the petitioner. [Finding of contempt on the part of the father. Deference of child support issue to review hearing.] [I]t would appear to be a peculiar, if not perverse, form of justice if the respondent were permitted to dodge his obligation to pay child support because his crusade to alienate his children from their mother had succeeded.”

M. (L.M.A.) v. M. (C.P.), 2011 CarswellMan 98, 2011 MBQB 46, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2543, 96 R.F.L. (6th) 365 (Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench 2011) [¶¶ 99, 213, ].

Canada: New Brunswick

O. (S.) v. O. (S.C.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“In her testimony, [court-appointed psychologist] Dr.[Simone] Devinante stated the father was involving the children in his struggle against the mother and this resulted in confusion in the children, distress and a general malaise which greatly increases their stress. At some point, damage is done, perhaps permanent. . . . In her report Dr. Devinante defined . . . Parental Alienation Syndrome[as] a disturbance in which children are preoccupied with deprecation and criticism of a parent. . . . It includes not only conscious but subconscious factors with the alienating parent that contributes to the child’s alienation from the target. . . . The assessor was convinced that the children showed signs of parental alienation. She described such a condition as a form of emotional abuse which affects the children in all phases of their lives. [Custody to remain with the mother, no access to the father pending trial.]”
O. (S.) v. O. (S.C.), 1999 CarswellNB 289, 215 N.B.R. (2d) 129, 551 A.P.R. 129 (New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench 1999) [¶¶ 54-56].

L. (R.) v. L. (N.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“After reviewing the three experts’ reports, testimony and other evidence received at the hearing, I find that parent alienation has and is occurring to A.L. . . . Having considered the best interests of A.L., the evidence submitted, the pertinent sections of the Divorce Act and the recommendations of Mr. Leger, it is ordered that custody of A.L. be with the Petitioner immediately and that the Respondent have no contact directly or indirectly until a qualified child therapist states to the Court that it is in A.L.’s best interest to have access to the Respondent.”
L. (R.) v. L. (N.), 2007 CarswellNB 684, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1100, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1156, 65 R.F.L. (6th) 117 (New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench 2007) [¶¶ 38, 49].

L. (N.) v. L. (R.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge found the mother had alienated the child from the father and was likely to continue to do so and that it was, therefore, in the best interests of the child for the father to have primary custody. [Appeal dismissed.]”
L. (N.) v. L. (R.), 2008 CarswellNB 527, 2008 NBCA 79, [2008] W.D.F.L. 5318, 59 R.F.L. (6th) 274, 864 A.P.R. 197, 337 N.B.R. (2d) 197, 172 A.C.W.S. (3d) 673 (New Brunswick Court of Appeal 2008) [¶ 3]. See also L. (N.) v. L. (R.), 2008 CarswellNB 26, [2008] W.D.F.L. 1265 (New Brunswick Court of Appeal 2008) (dismissing motion to stay change of access and custody pending appeal, on the basis of the same lower-court finding of alienation); L. (R.) v. L. (N.), 2007 CarswellNB 684 (below).

Corey v. Corey:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“This historical reluctance to impose orders which are not consistent with a child’s wishes has undergone some judicial scrutiny recently in the context of ‘parental alienation’ cases. It is not this court’s intention to attempt to distill and present those recent pronouncements, only to say that some considerable attention is being directed to the issue. Indeed, in a recent decision a finding of ‘parental alienation’ was sufficient for the court to vary a custody order, force the removal of a child from the alienating parent’s home and into the custody of, and therapy with, the non-alienating parent. See L. (J.K.) v. S. (N.C.), 2008 CarswellOnt 2903 (Ont. S.C.J.). The evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Corey in this case did not present the notion of alienating conduct in any clinical sense, if indeed there is such a thing. It suggested, however, that Mrs. Corey’s distress at the breakup of the relationship, and her subsequent conduct, have certainly influenced how the children reacted to their father. For example, Mrs. Corey willingly acknowledged that she had discussed the separation, and the reasons for it, with the children. She involved Fenton in an analysis of an RESP account with the result that Fenton called his father and accused him of stealing Fenton’s money. According to Mrs. Corey, she refused to allow or encourage counseling for Connor with anyone apart from an individual associated with her church. None of the children’s school records contain any contact information for, or mention of, Mr. Corey. Mrs. Corey took no actively persuasive steps to encourage or facilitate the boys’ contact with their father despite the fact that pre-separation all of the boys had enjoyed a close and loving relationship with him. [Judgment of divorce granting primary custody to mother and access to father.]”
Corey v. Corey, 2010 CarswellNB 160, 2010 NBQB 112, [2010] W.D.F.L. 2939, [2010] W.D.F.L. 2955, [2010] W.D.F.L. 2956, [2010] W.D.F.L. 2959, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3034, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3019, 81 R.F.L. (6th) 447, 929 A.P.R. 249, 359 N.B.R. (2d) 249 (New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench 2010) [¶ 37].

L. (A.) v. M. (C.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“From the evidence, I am persuaded that Ms. M. would have, had she been able to, separated all contact between A. and his father. Her actions speak volumes. She delisted L. from the Province of New Brunswick health records, she made access conditions that were unreasonable in the months post separation, she does nothing to encourage the relationship that A. has with his father, and she has demonstrated the actions of an alienating parent. [Custody of the A. from sole custody with mother and access to father to ‘parallel parenting schedule’ of alternating weeks.]”
L. (A.) v. M. (C.), 2010 CarswellNB 58, 2010 NBQB 46, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3899, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3853, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3851 (New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench 2010)

Myles v. Armstrong:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — (Increased) custody to target parent: ♂

“[T]he Consent Order requires efforts be undertaken to encourage and facilitate counseling to assist the girls in re-establishing their relationship with Mr. Armstrong. Dr. Albert Cyr, who performed the Parenting Capacity Assessment, testified at trial. Although, no findings were made by the court in connection with the evidence of Dr. Cyr, his conclusions were summa-
rized in his report as follows: ‘It is our finding that both daughters have been alienated to their father, the oldest more strongly and that both parents played an active role in this endeavour. Both daughters are of an age where they can decide over their preference, but are handicapped in doing so by their alienation to their father.’ [Father’s request to allow unsupervised visitation denied.]”
Myles v. Armstrong, 2011 CarswellNB 656, 2011 NBQB 61, 210 A.C.W.S. (3d) 193 (New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench 2011) [¶ 15].

Canada: Newfoundland & Labrador

M. (J.M.) v. M. (K.A.A.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“In her first report filed with this court in June 2003, Ms. Piercey was able to identify the presence of mild to moderate parental alienation of the mother although she was unable to say whether this was purposeful on the part of the father. This report was prepared prior to her being made aware of the 2003 taped calls. Ms. Piercey at that time recommended that A spend equal time with each parent so as to permit the mother to re-establish her relationship with her son. . . . After getting access to the 2003 tapes, Ms. Piercey was able to clearly conclude that the alienation was deliberate on the part of the father. [Sole custody to mother, access to father.]”
M. (J.M.) v. M. (K.A.A.), 2005 CarswellNfld 21, 2005 NLUFC 2, [2005] W.D.F.L. 1360, [2005] W.D.F.L. 1422, [2005] W.D.F.L. 1373, 244 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 187, 726 A.P.R. 187 (Newfoundland and Labrador Unified Family Court 2005) [¶¶ 100-01].

M. (J.M.) v. M. (K.A.A.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“A custody-access trial was to begin on June 16, 2003. Shortly before this, counsel for the mother produced recordings that the mother had made of telephone conversations between the father and the child. The recordings and transcripts were received in evidence. The Trial Judge found that the calls ‘showed an obvious attempt by the father to alienate [the child] from his mother.’ [Appeal of custody award to mother denied.]”
M. (J.M.) v. M. (K.A.A.), 2005 CarswellNfld 298, 2005 NLCA 64, [2006] W.D.F.L. 45, [2006] W.D.F.L. 16, [2006] W.D.F.L. 54, [2006] W.D.F.L. 121, 259 D.L.R. (4th) 344, 21 R.F.L. (6th) 102, 251 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 349, 752 A.P.R. 349 (Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal 2005 [¶¶ 4-5]. See also M. (J.M.) v. M. (K.A.A.), 2005 CarswellNfld 173, 2005 NLCA 42, [2005] W.D.F.L. 3272, 20 C.P.C. (6th) 340 (Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal 2005) (leave to appeal procedural matters denied).

King v. King:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Court disagreed

“Dr. Kimberley’s viva voce evidence included that children would be normally interviewed more than once especially where an initial interview showed evidence of ‘coached responses’. He did admit that it would have been ‘helpful’ to interview Ms. King but doubted whether it would have changed his parental alienation conclusions. . . . Dr. Kimberley also admitted during cross-examination that he could not make a ‘firm conclusion’ that parental alienation had been established but it was ‘highly likely’ because of the multiple indicators of parental alienation. [Child support cases: court takes issue with expert’s alienation findings, blames father for alienation from child, no impact on child support.]”
King v. King, 2008 CarswellNfld 55, 2008 NLUFC 3, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2132, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2031, 856 A.P.R. 341, 279 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 341 (Newfoundland and Labrador Unified Family Court 2008) [¶ 19-20].

D. (A.J.) v. D. (E.E.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“I am well aware that evidence from credible witnesses does not disclose that either Ms. D. or her parents attempted to alienate C. from her father. This is not unusual. There is however some evidence which has enabled me to determine that Ms. D. and her parents, especially Mr. S., have contributed to C. being alienated from her father; this follows. [No changes to custody.]”
D. (A.J.) v. D. (E.E.), 2009 CarswellNfld 117 (Newfoundland and Labrador Unified Family Court 2009) [¶ 91].

E. (R.) v. G. (N.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The judge determined that R.E. (the ‘father’) has alienated his daughter, now nine years old, from her mother. The child has been in the care of her father for the past two years. The mother has seen the child only once during that time. The child is adamant that she does not wish to live with her mother. Both parents live in St. John’s. . . . Relying on a finding of ‘parental alienation’ the judge ordered that the child be immediately removed from the care of her father. He granted sole custody to her mother.”
E. (R.) v. G. (N.), 2010 CarswellNfld 252, 2010 NLCA 51, 927 A.P.R. 149, 300 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 149, 100 R.F.L. (6th) 88 (Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal 2010) [¶¶ 2-3].

E. (R.) v. G. (N.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“At trial, it was noted that the child had not been parented by her mother since July 2008. It was determined that the child’s recorded preferences in various interviews by social workers and expert psychologists to avoid her mother had to be discounted due to the fact that they were the result of her alienation from her mother caused by the father. The trial judge ordered that the custody of the child be transferred to the mother with no access rights for the father for a period of time.”
E. (R.) v. G. (N.), 2010 CarswellNfld 291, 2010 NLCA 60, [2010] W.D.F.L. 5278, 932 A.P.R. 240, 301 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 240, 100 R.F.L. (6th) 101 (Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal 2010).

Meadus v. Meadus:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Unfortunately, Mr. Meadus does not currently have the ability to meet the Children’s emotional needs. The evidence confirms that Mr. Meadus has communicated his irrational beliefs about Mrs. Meadus to or in the presence of the Children, which is akin to a form of parental alienation and/or emotional abuse. When Mr. Meadus saw Christa-Jo Branton’s report, he confronted Emily during a supervised access visit suggesting that if that was how she felt, she should stay with her mother. [Sole custody to the mother.]”
Meadus v. Meadus, 2011 CarswellNfld 214, 2011 NLTD(F) 29, [2011] W.D.F.L. 3761, 962 A.P.R. 223, 309 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 223 (Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Trial Division) 2011) [¶¶ 68, 72].

Samuelson v. Samuelson:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“All of the foregoing proves, and I so find, that Kyle has not only bought into his mother’s alienation programming against his father but he has also selfcreated contributions against his father as well. I am therefore satisfied that there is enough substantive evidence to support the requirements of the existence of PAS. [Joint custody, with therapy provisions.]”
Samuelson v. Samuelson, 2011 CarswellNfld 356, 2011 NLTD(F) 48, 208 A.C.W.S. (3d) 338, 977 A.P.R. 47, 314 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 47, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1777, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1749, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1743, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1733, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1727, [2012] W.D.F.L. 1726 (Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (Trial Division) 2011) [¶¶ 48, 110].

Canada: Nova Scotia

McGrath v. McGrath:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Humphreys opined that Ms. McGrath’s behavior shows many characteristics of ‘parental alienation syndrome.’ [Held: ‘Ms. McGrath may be suffering from a mental illness.’ From no access for father to interim joint custody. Mother ordered into counseling. Continuing role for Dr. Humphreys as assessor to facilitate father’s access].”
McGrath v. McGrath, 2002 CarswellNS 476, 2002 NSSF 49, 208 N.S.R. (2d) 391, 652 A.P.R. 391 (Nova Scotia Supreme Court, 2002) [¶ 27].

Wedsworth v. Wedsworth:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“I have found that Ms. Wedsworth has been interfering with the children’s access to their father. I accept that access improves when there is a court case on the horizon. I see no real commitment to Mr. Wedsworth’s role as the boys father. In fact I find that Ms. Wedsworth has been committed to an active and ongoing campaign to drive him out of their lives. . . . I accept Ms. van Feggelen’s opinion that these children are presently at risk. Michael is a very sensitive 8-year-old boy. He had the misfortune of being drawn into the parental conflict when Ms. Wedsworth alleged that Maria assaulted him. His alienation from his father at the hands of his mother was evident when he told the assessor ‘when dad has a problem, I don’t care, when mom has a problem I really care.’ . . . This is one of those rare and exceptional cases where drastic action is required to meet the best interests of the children. It is a case where the wishes of the children must be given little weight. It is one of those few cases where the parental rights of one parent must be severely curtailed in the interests of creating a healthy family environment for these children. It is unfortunate for the parents that things have gotten so bad that the court is left with such limited options. . . . [After seven years living with the mother, sole custody to the father, and, because decision may make mother a flight risk, no access to mother for four weeks, then supervised two-hour sessions on weekends, pending review.]”
Wedsworth v. Wedsworth, 2005 CarswellNS 7, 2005 NSSF 2, [2005] W.D.F.L. 1133, 229 N.S.R. (2d) 168, 725 A.P.R. 168 (Nova Scotia Supreme Court 2005) [¶¶ 44, 47-49, 62-81].

Jachimowicz v. Jachimowicz:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“I find that Cathy Jachimowicz has, intentionally or unintentionally, alienated Michael from his father. [Divorce granted; sole custody to father, no contact with mother for four weeks, then supervised access for two hours every two weeks pending review.]”
Jachimowicz v. Jachimowicz, 2006 CarswellNS 644, [2006] N.S.J. No. 171, 2006 NSSC 82, 43 R.F.L. (6th) 195, [2007] W.D.F.L. 4922 (Nova Scotia Supreme Court 2006) [¶¶ 70, 78].

Canada: Ontario

Gordon v. Solmon:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Goldstein has said that the children are being alienated from the father. He said that that is a disastrous course. Helen Goudge says in effect the mother is wrong about the father but cannot accept that truth. The alienation is a fact and so the mother in effect must be supported because things have come to such a pass that she is almost all that the children have. But I hear this against the background of what Dr. Goldstein is saying, that is, that the present course is headed for disaster. And I hear it and I want everybody to hear it in terms of my own conviction that there is nothing inherently disqualifying about the parenting skills of the father. . . . I do not wish any further mediation with Helen Goudge to have the effect of stopping access. I see nothing wrong with there being mediation, because there will be some things to work out. But it is not any longer—neither with Helen Goudge nor with any other therapist, mediator, conciliator, referee or assessor without further order—to stop access. And mediation is not to be carried on except in that frame of reference.”
Gordon v. Solmon, 1989 CarswellOnt 1417, [1992] W.D.F.L. 1105 (Ontario Supreme Court (High Court of Justice) 1989) [¶¶ 130, 139].

Rothwell v. Kisko:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Doctor Roche defines this as a severe case of parental alienation syndrome and I am advised by Miss Selegy, counsel for the Official Guardian, that indeed it is her information that this is the most severe case of parental alienation syndrome that has come to the attention of the Family Court Clinic in this regional municipality. [Sole custody to the mother, no contact with father, father found in contempt.]”
Rothwell v. Kisko, 1991 CarswellOnt 1326 [1992] W.D.F.L. 049 (Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), 1991) [¶ 4].

Davy v. Davy:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Access increased to target parent: ♂

“Commenting on the observations of Pamela Hurley that the father had been put in a ‘no win situation’, Dr. Albin opined that this occurred ‘not because he is an inadequate father or an abusive man, but because of an historical pattern of events that have occurred while the children have been with their mother and her family.’ It was also his opinion that the boys ‘show quite extensive features of what some psychological and psychiatric practitioners have referred to as features of parental alienation syndrome.’ Based upon his interviews with the mother and the boys, he lays the blame for this on the doorstep of the mother or her family. [Expanded access provisions for the father.]”
Davy v. Davy, 1993 CarswellOnt 1630 (Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) 1993) [¶ 25].

Jones v. Jones:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody increased (to joint) custody for target parent: ♀

“The basis of the problem with access and the child’s adamant refusal to have contact with the mother lies squarely at the feet of the husband. His attitude and anger towards the wife has resulted in, as described by the wife’s counsel, ‘a simple matter becoming very complex’ and ‘a tragedy.’ This child is aligned with her father and is alienated from her mother. This alignment and alienation has resulted in the child being subjected to emotional and mental stress. [Joint custody ordered, over child’s refusal to be with the mother.]”
Jones v. Jones, 1994 CarswellOnt 2125 (Ontario Court of Justice (General Division), 1994) [¶ 52].

Tracey v. Tracey:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Increasd access to target parent: ♀

“The access in place and the difficulties surrounding it, do not permit Paulette Tracey to have meaningful access. At present the situation suggests something akin to parental alienation. The children have been exposed to hostility and conflict, and have frequently been present during, or the focus of, police intervention. This has occurred approximately 10 times. [Minor mod
ification of the access schedule for mother.]”
Tracey v. Tracey, 1996 CarswellOnt 311 (Ontario General Division 1996) [¶ 10].

Coda v. Coda:

Alienating Parent: ♂♀

“I accept the evidence of child psychologist Dr. Allan Young that this increasing alienation of one child from the other parent was due in part to parent alienation syndrome. [Elder child to remain with father, younger with mother; counseling for both children.]”
Coda v. Coda, 1997 CarswellOnt 3953 (Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) 1997) [¶ 8].

Sousa v. Sousa:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“I find, as a fact, that the children have been encouraged by their father to become, and remain, alienated from their mother. We heard a description of a cruel return of Christmas gifts which had been sent to the children by the mother. This was clearly an expression of the father’s dismay and outrage at returning to his home in August of 1995 and finding that his wife had removed certain items. He has projected his anger onto the children and said that they returned the gifts when they saw what their mother had left them with. . . . The flames of resentment and hurt, which the children may have felt, were fanned continually by the father. While he stated openly in this Court that the children are free to see their mother, and I quote, ‘I personally will not stop them,’ he is clearly of the view that it is not good for them to see their mother. This alienation, in my view, is tantamount to emotional abuse of these children. . . . I make no order as to access, but I do order the mother and the children to attend for counselling for at least three sessions to see if their relationship can be repaired and if their emotional health can be assisted, and I order the father to deliver them to such counselling sessions. I take it that, during such sessions, the mother will have counselling, also, as to how best to deal with this without any anger or recriminations.”
Sousa v. Sousa, 1998 CarswellOnt 5280 (Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) 1998) [¶¶ 32-34].

Lossing v. Dmuchowski:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Access increased to target parent: ♂

“I am concerned that each day that goes by creates more and more risk that these children will be further alienated from their father and consequently permanently harmed. A remedy cannot wait until trial. [Expanded parenting time for the father, including unconsented-to overnights; mother ordered to therapy. Father to arrange therapy for daughter. Expeditious trial timetable imposed.]”
Lossing v. Dmuchowski, 2000 CarswellOnt 754, [2000] W.D.F.L. 238, [2000] O.J. No. 837 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2000) [¶ 19].

Orszak v. Orszak:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“If the parties had sufficient means, I would order the involvement of an access monitor to provide a neutral service in ensuring access takes place and meets the best interests of the children. Since the parties lack the resources to hire someone to perform this function and it is not available as a public resource, I have had to modify the access requirements accordingly. I am attempting to introduce regularized and normalized access in a more gradual way in order to overcome what may be parental alienation syndrome which has been developing over the past while.”
Orszak v. Orszak, 2000 CarswellOnt 1574, 8 R.F.L. (5th) 350, [2000] W.D.F.L. 588 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2000) [¶ 55].

Reeves v. Reeves:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“I find this is a clear case of parental alienation by the father which has resulted in obvious harm to the Reeves children. Sometimes it takes years for the harm resulting from children being denied their right to have a relationship with both parents to surface. In the case before me, there is already evidence of deep and ongoing harm as a result of parental alienation. . . . The results of parental alienation by the father against their mother on these children are observable now, and according to the Children’s Lawyer social worker, the children are being adversely affected at a rapid and increasing rate. . . . Rarely does a court have such unequivocal evidence as to the adverse effects on the children to remain with one parent as is set out in the two affidavits of the Children’s Lawyer social worker. It would, in my view, be a grave disservice to the Reeves children not to act promptly and effectively on her advice and recommendations in this case. . . . Accordingly, I am changing custody of the children from the father to the mother forthwith.”
Reeves v. Reeves, 2001 CarswellOnt 277 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2001) [¶¶ 26-29].

Cox v. Stephen:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“There is no doubt that the trial judge had evidence of a willful, manipulative mother who was focused on control of Nathan’s relationship with his father and the alienation of Dr. Cox from her son’s life. [Appeal of trial court’s change of custody granted: To change custody on four factors alone, as enunciated by the trial judge, and give less than equal weight to the love, affection and emotional ties the son had for and to his mother, her husband and her other children was found to be an error in law.]”
Cox v. Stephen, 2002 CarswellOnt 2321, 30 R.F.L. (5th) 54, [2002] O.T.C. 499 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2002) [¶ 33].

R. (S.) v. R. (M.):

Alienating Parent: Foster ♀♂ — Access to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Butkowsky testified to explain the basis for his recommendations. Key issues concerned the statements A. made to him about his knowledge of his parentage, who had advised him of various things, and evidence bearing on the issue of alienation. [Access for mother, contempt finding for adoptive parents.]”
R. (S.) v. R. (M.), 2002 CarswellOnt 1423, 114 A.C.W.S. (3d) 76 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2002) [¶ 122].

Cooper v. Cooper:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Joint custody to target parent: ♂

“Ms. Cooper argued that she followed along every step of the way doing what her lawyer and counsellor instructed. She claimed that she was faultless. Her position and testimony is completely contradictory to all other evidence before this court. She further testified that it was the children who were not interested in having contact with their father. However, the children had no opportunity to make this decision themselves, having been emotionally alienated from their father by their mother from the point of separation and possibly before. I accept the evidence of the various professionals who recognized as early as 1999 that there was a very unhealthy enmeshment that the respondent had nurtured with respect to all three children and herself. She had written knowledge of her destructive behaviour in the 1999 report of the assessor and chose to ignore the same. . . . I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Cooper’s actions and lack thereof constituted the offence of civil contempt. It is also clear that the actions of the respondent were contrary to the best interests of all three children. [Finding of contempt, $10,000 fine; next finding of contempt will be $15,000, the next imprisonment. Joint custody of the only remaining minor child (16 years old).]”
Cooper v. Cooper, 2004 CarswellOnt 5255, [2005] W.D.F.L. 711, [2005] W.D.F.L. 695, [2005] W.D.F.L. 642, [2004] O.T.C. 1106, 135 A.C.W.S. (3d) 880 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 2004) [¶¶ 56-57].

Forte v. Forte [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“I have decided that it is in the best interests of the children to terminate the shared arrangement in place now in favour of full time residence with Daria. In my view, there is a greater likelihood of the children developing and maintaining a strong relationship with both parents if they live with their mother and have access with their father. . . . In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the entire extensive record before me. I have included in this consideration the assessment report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. That assessment, prepared by Dr. Linda Janzen, recommends that sole custody be with Daria, with specified access to Sandro. I have placed little reliance upon the recommendation itself, but I have placed weight on the facts set out in the report regarding statements made by the children to Dr. Janzen. In my view those statements do support a conclusion that the children have been alienated from the mother to some extent, and that, in particular, Sandro has placed the blame for the marriage breakdown on Daria, has communicated this feeling in strong terms to the children, and that as a result the children do blame their mother for the unexpected breakdown of their parents’ relationship.”
Forte v. Forte, 2004 CarswellOnt 1461, [2004] W.D.F.L. 449, [2004] O.T.C. 321,
130 A.C.W.S. (3d) 329 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2004) [¶¶ 4-5].

Forte v. Forte [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“In April, 2004 [Forte v. Forte [I], 2004 CarswellOnt 1461 (Ont. S.C.J.)], I released my decision in which I awarded sole custody to Daria on the basis of parental alienation by Sandro. . . . The fact that the children may not be able to reattend Rotherglen following a trial decision will not cause them serious and irreparable harm. The range of choice of schools at that time may be limited, but the immediate need of the children to have a settled and suitable home and school life outweighs the reduction of options available at the end of trial. . . . The change should be made now, coinciding with the change in custody. If a further change flows from the trial decision, the choice then will be based upon the living arrangements of the custodial parent(s) and the choices that are reasonably available at that time. . . . I am not seized with the balance of the motion (respecting spousal and child support and sale of the matrimonial home).”
Forte v. Forte [II], 2004 CarswellOnt 2656 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2004) [¶¶ 2, 16-17].

Johnson v. Johnson:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“This is a very sad case. The parties separated in 1991. They have three children, Paul who is 23, Mark who is 21, and Celina who is 17. The parties separated in 1992, were divorced in 1995, and fought a 10-day court trial over custody of access to the children in January 1996. Mr. Justice Weekes’ reasons for judgment found that the two boys were alienated from their father. He further found that the fault lay with both parties and urged family counseling to repair the situation. This never occurred. [Support case: father moved to end support obligations, mother asked to continue support and for extraordinary educational expenses, court ordered Father to pay support and towards one post-secondary degree per child.]”
Johnson v. Johnson, 2004 CarswellOnt 3512, 9 R.F.L. (6th) 380 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2004) [¶ 2].

Forte v. Forte [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“In April, 2004 [Forte v. Forte [I], 2004 CarswellOnt 1461 (Ont. S.C.J.)], I released my decision in which I awarded sole custody to Daria on the basis of parental alienation by Sandro. . . . The fact that the children may not be able to reattend Rotherglen following a trial decision will not cause them serious and irreparable harm. The range of choice of schools at that time may be limited, but the immediate need of the children to have a settled and suitable home and school life outweighs the reduction of options available at the end of trial. . . . The change should be made now, coinciding with the change in custody. If a further change flows from the trial decision, the choice then will be based upon the living arrangements of the custodial parent(s) and the choices that are reasonably available at that time. . . . I am not seized with the balance of the motion (respecting spousal and child support and sale of the matrimonial home).”
Forte v. Forte [II], 2004 CarswellOnt 2656 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2004) [¶¶ 2, 16-17].

Johnson v. Johnson:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“This is a very sad case. The parties separated in 1991. They have three children, Paul who is 23, Mark who is 21, and Celina who is 17. The parties separated in 1992, were divorced in 1995, and fought a 10-day court trial over custody of access to the children in January 1996. Mr. Justice Weekes’ reasons for judgment found that the two boys were alienated from their father. He further found that the fault lay with both parties and urged family counseling to repair the situation. This never occurred. [Support case: father moved to end support obligations, mother asked to continue support and for extraordinary educational expenses, court ordered Father to pay support and towards one post-secondary degree per child.]”
Johnson v. Johnson, 2004 CarswellOnt 3512, 9 R.F.L. (6th) 380 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2004) [¶ 2].

R. v. Twati:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The final aggravating factor that I will address is that the child Jamal has become estranged and alienated from his mother. He showed on the witness stand a lack of respect, a lack of insight, and a callous disregard for her feelings. He has shown by his behaviour, and he exhibited on the witness stand all of the signs of a child alienated from his mother. His attitude and lack of insight showed on the witness stand, and it mirrored that of his father, who we know by all accounts is very close to Jamal, and has a lot of influence on him. [Father pled guilty to abduction: took his child to Libya for 11 years against the mother’s wishes.]”
R. v. Twati, 2004 CarswellOnt 3415, 2004 ONCJ 150 (Ontario Court of Justice 2004) [¶ 72].

Moudry v. Moudry:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“This is a blatant case involving parental alienation by the respondent of the child from the father. . . . The respondent’s behaviour has been and continues to be wilful, inexcusable and totally contrary to the child Meagan’s best interests. The respondent had no reasonable belief that she was not in contempt and the respondent has continually flaunted her breaches of this court’s orders. [Divorce granted, sole custody of child to father, mother to deliver the child, police to apprehend or enforce delivery of child, restraining order against mother during father’s parenting time, mother to pay settlement of equalization payment and costs to father (~$13,000 in total), $5000 fine to Ontario Treasurer.]”
Moudry v. Moudry, 2005 CarswellOnt 2630, 140 A.C.W.S. (3d) 505 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2005) [¶¶ 2, 55].

Fernandes v. Vukovic:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Ms. Vukovic’s behaviour is in no way defensible, her excuses are not credible and it is apparent to this Court that this is a classic case of parental alienation. Her denial of access was repeated, deliberate, and wilful. [Sole custody to father, facility-supervised access for mother at her own expense, mother to pay child support, no retroactive child support to mother, mother found in contempt, $5000 fine.]”
Fernandes v. Vukovic, 2006 CarswellOnt 159, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1160, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1155, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1221, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1217, [2006] W.D.F.L. 1265, 145 A.C.W.S. (3d) 101, 69 W.C.B. (2d) 107 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2006) [¶¶ 76, 141].

Rogerson v. Tessaro:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The trial judge was alert to the persistence of the mother’s conduct in attempting to alienate the father from the children. That troublesome conduct carried with it long term implications that were contrary to the best interests of the children. It included a broad range of behaviours, including such potentially serious behaviour as not telling the father about or giving him medications that were prescribed for the children. . . . We recognize, as did the trial judge, that the remedy of granting custody to the father is a dramatic one. However, that remedy was supported by the expert evidence and by the mother’s persistent, ingrained and deep-rooted inability to support the children’s relationship with the father. We note that the trial judge carefully structured her order so that the children’s transition from primary residence with the mother to primary residence with the father would be gradual and cause as little disruption as possible for the children. . . . Since this appeal was primarily fact driven and we see no error of law, the appeal must be dismissed.”
Rogerson v. Tessaro, 2006 CarswellOnt 2777, 147 A.C.W.S. (3d) 821, [2006] W.D.F.L. 3046, [2006] W.D.F.L. 3049, [2006] W.D.F.L. 3047 (Ontario Court of Appeal 2006) [¶¶ 4, 8, 9].

Tock v. Tock:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Goldstein expressed concern about Ms. Buchbinder Tock’s difficulty in choosing battles with her children. However, he had greater concerns about the situation at Mr. Tock’s house. It was his impression that ‘the older children are being rapidly alienated from their mother and her family.’ . . . I . . . conclude that it is in Goldie’s best interests that her primary residence be with her mother and that this change be effected immediately. I am aware that the change may not be easy. Dr. Goldstein acknowledged that there may be a storm if Goldie is ordered to move to her mother’s full-time. However, he was of the opinion that the ongoing therapy that Goldie and her mother are undergoing should help to ease the transition.”
Tock v. Tock, 2006 CarswellOnt 8553, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2581, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2597, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2647, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2671, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2583, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2612, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2632, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2590, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2589, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2620, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2626, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2640, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2656, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2637, 154 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1125 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2006) [¶¶ 45, 141].

Pettenuzzo-Deschene v. Deschene:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Hepburn’s conclusions were without qualification. They are among the strongest I have ever experienced in my legal and judicial career, which has involved substantial family law practice. He concluded: ‘What we have here is a multifaceted, severe, malicious, self-serving, deliberate campaign of parental alienation, a desperate and misguided attempt by a naive mother to keep her children to herself, regardless of the consequences to them.’ . . . I . . . accept Dr. Hepburn’s conclusions that the children (particularly Jadyn) are the victims of parental alienation on the part of the mother against the father. I fear that the counseling administered to date may have had the unfortunate effect of entrenching and legitimizing the child’s views in her own mind. While I do not question that the mother is sincere in her beliefs about the father and his effectiveness as a parent, I conclude that she has projected those beliefs onto her children, Jadyn in particular, with result that they have been afraid to be with their father. On this basis, I conclude that there is jurisdiction to vary the existing order for custody and access. [Joint custody, primary care of father, mother to have interim supervised access one day a week after first ten days.]”
Pettenuzzo-Deschene v. Deschene, 2007 CarswellOnt 5095, [2007] W.D.F.L. 3936, 40 R.F.L. (6th) 381, 159 A.C.W.S. (3d) 404 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2007) [¶¶ 25, 50, 61].

S. (C.) v. S. (M.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“My comments about Court Watch and its members are made because they were active participants in events that have helped shape the outcome of this case. They helped the father drive the wedge in further between the two camps—the father and the three oldest children versus the mother—and made the prospect of any relationship between the camps more remote than ever. Their intervention helped solidify the three oldest children’s alienation from their mother and increase the risk of harm to their sibling if contact were to be restored. And so their participation helped the mother’s case for a termination of access, which is not at all what they or the father intended. [No access for father to the youngest child, enforced with a restraining order.]”
S. (C.) v. S. (M.), 2007 CarswellOnt 1267, 37 R.F.L. (6th) 373, 155 A.C.W.S. (3d) 605, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2939, [2007] W.D.F.L. 2944 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2007) [¶¶ 119, 139].

Sgroi v. Socci:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The Respondent called Dr. Awad, a qualified psychiatrist, who opined on parental alienation. It is the position of the Applicant that the opinion of Dr. Awad lacked a factual underpinning and lacked weight because he had not conducted a family assessment. The Applicant relied upon the opinion and conclusions of Dr. Morris that parental alienation did not occur.”
Sgroi v. Socci, 2007 CarswellOnt 8526, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2928, [2008] W.D.F.L. 2937 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2007) [¶ 12].

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Prior to the trial before Zuker J., Dr. Amin conducted extensive psychological assessments upon both of the parties as well as the children. He also testified at the trial. The learned trial Judge states. ‘I accept Dr. Amin’s conclusion that the children are the victims of parental alienation on the part of the mother.’ [Appeal of decision immediately to relocate children to father: dismissed.]”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.), 2008 CarswellOnt 5655, 241 O.A.C. 127, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1175 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) 2008) [¶ 14].

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.D.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“I find there is irrefutable evidence that the primary aspects of PAS are present in Ms. Lisa Diane Ha.’s relationship with Mr. Martin Hu. She has engaged in a campaign of denigration. . . . Accordingly, having found parental alienation, I find that there is the basis for varying the current custody and access provided it is in the best interests of the children. [Custody transferred to father, all visitation by mother at the discretion of and supervised by the Society.]”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.D.), 2008 CarswellOnt 9401, 2008 ONCJ 783, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3226, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3229 (Ontario Court of Justice 2008) [¶¶ 316, 329].

Corbyn v. Corbyn:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The evidence from the parents, as well as from the society reports and the police reports, leads to the inevitable conclusion that these two parents are, unfortunately, unable to discuss issues concerning the children without becoming verbally hostile and at times physically confrontational. . . . However, it is the father who is the primary instigator and who has persistently involved the society and the police unnecessarily in an effort to discredit the mother and to shut her out of having a meaningful relationship with her children. . . . Most disturbingly, the statements of the children themselves to the police, the society and to Roy Reid, the clinical investigator, demonstrate the father’s failure to recognize that children should not be manipulated to form unfounded, negative impressions of their mother. . . . [T]he evidence convinces the court that the emotional health of the children will suffer if they remain in the present environment wherein the father repeatedly speaks negatively and untruthfully about their mother. . . . The mother has not engaged in this manipulative process. Generally, she has accommodated father’s demands for contact with the children. . . . When she decided to leave the children with the father in September 2004 so that she could get a job and provide some family income, she was overly optimistic about the father’s willingness to support her relationship with her children. He very quickly demonstrated that he had no intention of so doing, but continued on a deter-
mined course of parental alienation. It is detrimental to the best interests of the children to continue to be subjected to this concerted manipulation. . . . [Sole custody to the mother with access for father: court prepared to require supervision, but mother asked that father’s access be unsupervised and include overnight weekends.]”
Corbyn v. Corbyn, 2008 CarswellOnt 5180, 2008 ONCJ 390, [2008] W.D.F.L. 4541, [2008] W.D.F.L. 4534 (Ontario Court of Justice 2008) [¶¶ 119-126, 130, 134].

L. (J.K.) v. S. (N.C.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“LS’s needs have significantly changed since the order of Backhouse J. He is now totally alienated from his mother. I find that LS is in danger as described by Dr. Awad and Dr. Goldstein. I agree that from what I have heard, LS is being subjected to a form of subtle emotional abuse which this court should not tolerate. [Sole custody transferred to the mother, no access to the father pending review.]”
L. (J.K.) v. S. (N.C.), 2008 CarswellOnt 2903, [2008] W.D.F.L. 3437, [2008] W.D.F.L. 3430, [2008] W.D.F.L. 3431, 54 R.F.L. (6th) 74 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2008) [¶ 204].

B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The arbitrator’s choice of remedy flowed from his finding that this was a case of parental alienation. The arbitrator relied heavily on the report and testimony of Dr. Warshak in concluding that the Family Workshop was in the children’s best interests. However, as noted above, Dr. Warshak declined to make specific recommendations because he had not met with or observed the father and the children. [Father’s application for judicial review dismissed, but appeal allowed.]”
B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.), 2009 CarswellOnt 647, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1476, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 81 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶ 114].

B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The legal errors in the arbitration award concerned the remedy for parental alienation, not the finding that parental alienation had occurred. In reaching my decision on disposition, I have considered the desirability of addressing the estrangement between the mother and her children. However, the problem with fashioning an appropriate remedy is that I do not have an adequate evidentiary basis to enable me to determine what remedy would be in J.B.’s best interests. . . . I therefore conclude that the appropriate disposition is to set aside the entire award. I recognize that in the result this family is no closer to a resolution than when the parents began the arbitration process. I cannot, however, make the order proposed by the mother in the absence of evidence that such an order would be in J.B.’s best interests having regard to his particular needs and circumstances.”
B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.), 2009 CarswellOnt 2660, [2009] W.D.F.L. 3145, 66 R.F.L. (6th) 103 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 47, 50].

Caparelli v. Caparelli:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“I find it reasonable to conclude that there has been a material change in circumstances sufficient that the best interests of the children warrant an immediate variation in the access provisions of the Divorce Order of October 11, 2007. In my view, there is clear evidence that since the granting of that Order the children have been caught in a vortex of emotional strife created in large measure by Mr. Caparelli’s parental alienation of Ms. Caparelli. . . . All access by Mr. Caparelli shall be constantly supervised by an adult person mutually acceptable to the parties with said acceptance not to be unreasonably withheld. The purpose of this supervision is to ensure that Mr. Caparelli is not afforded further opportunity to continue to alienate the children from their mother. In the event this previously agreed upon supervisor is not available, access shall not occur.”
Caparelli v. Caparelli, 2009 CarswellOnt 8261, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1552, 80 R.F.L. (6th) 446 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 20, 23].

L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Dr. Barbara Fidler was qualified as an expert in areas of clinical psychology, custody and access assessments and high conflict custody disputes, including parental alienation cases. She testified about the signs of alienation of children from a parent. Filed as exhibit 8A is Chapter 6 of a book she is publishing on the topic entitled ‘Understanding Child Alienation and Its Impact on Families’. Her research, in part, is derived from the clinical research of others. For example, she refers, in the book, to the work of Richard Gardner and his term ‘parental alienation syndrome (PAS).’ This term is defined as ‘a form of emotional child abuse almost exclusively seen in separated and divorced families in custody disputes.’ . . . The three children of the marriage have been alienated from the Applicant over a long period because K. D. is unable to accept that it is in the best interests of the children to have a relationship with their father. [Ordered: sole custody to father, no access to mother pending review.]”
L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.), 2009 CarswellOnt 188, 93 O.R. (3d) 409, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1360, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1364, 65 R.F.L. (6th) 146 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 85, 151].

L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Justice Benotto wrote the following in her March 13, 2000 endorsement: ‘I am concerned that each day that goes by creates more and more risk that these children will be further alienated from their father and consequently permanently harmed. A remedy cannot wait until trial.’ . . . I have already commented on the Respondent’s credibility in the first part of these reasons. To those comments, I only add that her actions towards the children alienated them from their father. [See: 2000–2004 PAS cases: Lossing v. Dmuchowski 2000 CarswellOnt 754. Finding of contempt regarding Mother’s conduct in that case: Mother to pay Father $35,000 in penalties and costs.]”
L. (A.G.) v. D. (K.B.), 2009 CarswellOnt 1764, [2009] W.D.F.L. 2630, [2009] W.D.F.L. 2632, [2009] W.D.F.L. 2789, 65 R.F.L. (6th) 182, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 386 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 4, 45, 53-60].

L. (J.K.) v. S. (N.C.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“After the parties separated in March 2005, their son L.S. resided with the respondent, his father. From the time of separation to the time of judgment, the boy was increasingly alienated from his mother by the words and conduct of his father. On three occasions, the respondent was before Judges of the Superior Court of Justice and urged by the presiding judge to implement a program of reintegration between his son and his former wife. A court appointed assessor noted early in the proceedings that parental alienation was being effected by the respondent to the detriment of his son. Despite all of this, the son had not seen his mother for over a year at the time of trial. After hearing extensive evidence relating to the issue of the alienation effected in this case . . . this court ordered that custody be forthwith granted to the mother (the applicant) with no access on an interim basis by the father. It was further ordered that she be permitted . . . to take the boy to the United States to participate in a therapeutic program with him. This court heard evidence from the psychologist who developed and managed the program. . . . The respondent was ordered to participate in a therapeutic program with his son with Dr. Goldstein in Toronto pending return of this matter before the court in August 2008. He did not follow through with that recommendation and on the return of the matter before the court in August, 2008, the court was not satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the boy to vary the ‘no access’ provisions of the Judgment. [Ruling:] I find that on the particular facts of this case, the respondent father is responsible for all of the experts’ expenses post trial.”
L. (J.K.) v. S. (N.C.), 2009 CarswellOnt 1017, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1703, [2009] W.D.F.L. 1704, 64 R.F.L. (6th) 32 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 1, 31].

MacArthur v. MacArthur:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“I am concerned that the Mother is deliberately alienating the children from the Father. She has not complied with either of the orders of Shaw J. of April 29, 2008 or mine of October 20, 2008 in spite of having consented to their terms. [Mother found to be unlawfully withholding children from Father; children to be returned to sole custody of Father; police to locate, apprehend and deliver children to Father; terminates prior custody orders; Mother show-caused for contempt and ordered to pay costs.]”
MacArthur v. MacArthur, 2009 CarswellOnt 2231, [2009] W.D.F.L. 4074, 176 A.C.W.S. (3d) 758 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶¶ 46-48].

McDonald v. Rzeszut:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“I concur with Ms. Schoester and Whalen J. that parental alienation is at play here, and the applicant has to accept responsibility for it. There is no doubt that historically she had denied access or varied access because, in her opinion, Matthew ought to be doing other things, or had other social commitments. [Request for sole custody dismissed.]”
McDonald v. Rzeszut, 2009 CarswellOnt 5015, [2009] W.D.F.L. 5402, [2009] W.D.F.L. 5411, [2009] W.D.F.L. 5374 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2009) [¶ 17].

B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) [III]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The evidence points overwhelmingly to a change in custody. In cases of severe irrational alienation such as this one, all the experts recommend the child be removed from the care of the alienating parent. The mother has the ability, the strength and insight to parent JB appropriately. She puts his interests first, not her own. She is more likely to foster a relationship between JB and his father. JB has a chance of developing a healthy relationship with both his parents only if he is in his mother’s custody. Mother will therefore have custody of JB.”
B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.), 2010 CarswellOnt 4782, 2010 ONSC 3717, 102 O.R. (3d) 197, [2011] W.D.F.L. 376, [2011] W.D.F.L. 352 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶ 125].

B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.) [IV]:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“In lengthy and thoughtful reasons in which the pivotal finding was that J.B.’s father had deliberately alienated him from his mother, the trial judge awarded custody of J.B. to his mother.”
B. (S.G.) v. L. (S.J.), 2010 CarswellOnt 6301, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4111, 93 R.F.L. (6th) 209 (Ontario Court of Appeal [In Chambers] 2010) [¶ 6].

Bruni v. Bruni:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Increased access to target parent: ♂

[This is the entirety of Paragraph 1 of this opinion: “Paging Dr. Freud. Paging Dr. Freud.”] “It is my view, sadly, that the alienation here [between father and youngest child, daughter] is so severe that it is in the best interests of [daughter] Taylor not to order or enforce access by [father] Larry. If access happens, fine . . . the parental alienation . . . in this case reflects an intent by Catherine to destroy the relationship between Taylor and Larry; it is shocking conduct. It also amounts to a hideous repudiation of the relationship between Catherine and Larry as co-parents of Taylor. The harm here probably is irreparable. [Access to father for older child. Spousal support to mother reduced to one dollar a month.]”
Bruni v. Bruni, 2010 CarswellOnt 8992, 2010 ONSC 6568, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1371, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1413, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1444, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1405, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1404, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1402, 104 O.R. (3d) 254, 100 R.F.L. (6th) 213 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶ 129, 209].

C. (W.) v. E. (C.) [I]:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“I find the evidence to be overwhelming that the mother has alienated the child against the father. . . . I accept the evidence of Dr. McDermott on this issue and note that there was no challenge by mother’s counsel regarding her finding that the mother had alienated the child against her father. . . . I also accept the evidence of Dr. Fidler as to the concept of alienation and note that from the list of warning signs of behaviours exhibited by a child and alienating parent, that a great number of them were present in this case. [No variation of access order ‘but on an interim basis only there shall be no enforcement of the access provisions.’ Therapeutic reunification counseling ordered.]”
C. (W.) v. E. (C.), 2010 CarswellOnt 5955, 2010 ONSC 3575, [2011] W.D.F.L. 368, [2011] W.D.F.L. 355, [2011] W.D.F.L. 329, 93 R.F.L. (6th) 279 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 96-98, 170].

C. (W.) v. E. (C.) [II]:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“In May 2007, mother unilaterally terminated access and father had not had access since that time—Father brought motion to vary order to give him sole custody with no access to mother based on parental alienation, and finding was made that mother alienated M from father—Issue arose as to whether judgment could be released to public—As full names of parties and child were not referred to in judgment, judgment could be released to public.”
C. (W.) v. E. (C.), 2010 CarswellOnt 6890, 2010 ONSC 4564 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010).

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“As already stated, Justice Brownstone did consider all of the evidence filed by the Mother. He concluded, based on that evidence, that the Mother may well have been unfairly and inaccurately labeled with several personality disorders and mental health diagnoses (at para. 22). He concluded, however, that even without an assessment report, the Mother’s behaviour of extreme parental alienation that was described in great detail in the 140 page decision of Zuker J. certainly necessitated the protection finding and disposition that was made and that the Mother’s behaviour since had only served to confirm the fundamentally important finding made at trial that she is a person who focuses only on her own needs and not those of her children and that she has absolutely no insight into the consequences of her behaviour on her children’s wellbeing. [Dismissed: appeal from order granting Society’s summary judgment motion to place children in father’s care.]”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.), 2010 CarswellOnt 10772 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 2, 33].

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.D.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to (remain with) target parent: ♂

“After an 18-day trial, Justice Marvin Zuker issued a 140-page decision in which he concluded that the mother had engaged in extreme parental alienation in respect of the children’s relationship with their father. [Summary judgment motion by Society granted: children to remain with father.]”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. H. (L.D.), 2010 CarswellOnt 2196, 2010 ONCJ 25, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3738, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3708, [2010] W.D.F.L. 3705, 83 R.F.L. (6th) 444 (Ontario Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 1-2].

Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. L. (K.A.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Having heard all of the evidence, it is impossible to come to any conclusion other than the mother has for years embarked on a campaign to alienate the children and now Nicole L. from her father to the detriment of the children. [Custody of child with father under supervision by applicant society.]”
Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo (Regional Municipality) v. L. (K.A.), 2010 CarswellOnt 7373, 2010 ONCJ 80, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1105, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1123, 92 R.F.L. (6th) 363 (Ontario Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 122, 129].

Jenkins v. Jenkins:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Both parents have alleged alienation or brainwashing on the part of the other. Dr. Frey described alienating behaviours on the part of [the father] Chris. [Sole custody to the mother.]”
Jenkins v. Jenkins, 2010 CarswellOnt 2922 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 124, 158].

K. (D.) v. K. (M.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Mr. K. was more strict and demanding of S.K., while Ms K. protected him. Ms K. saw affection by S.K. for his father and the paternal extended family as a threat to her own relationship with her son. Prior to separation M.K. was already undermining the relationship between father and son. By the time the parents separated, the stage was set for full alienation, and this is what occurred. . . . After separation Ms K. waged a deliberate campaign to terminate S.K.’s access to his father. The measures she took, changing the family’s telephone number after telephone access had been assured by court order, arranging to pick up S.K. early from school each day to avoid contact with his father, calling the police when Mr. K. dropped off S.K.’s belongings, bringing S.K. to court to seek a permanent restraining order, seeking to have Mr. K. removed as a school contact, were inconsistent with her stated position that it was up to S.K. to decide if and when he wanted to see his father. In these circumstances it was inconceivable that S.K., as a young teenager, could exercise any freedom of choice in the matter of access, and it was entirely predictable that he would become aligned with his mother and completely alienated from his father. [No change in access sought. Request for order for treatment of child denied.]”
K. (D.) v. K. (M.), 2010 CarswellOnt 6360, 2010 ONSC 4585, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4719, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4686, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4625, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4623, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4645, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4630, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4628, [2010] W.D.F.L. 4598 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 123-24, 276].

S. (C.) v. S. (M.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to (remain with) target parent: ♀

“The father had taken aggressive and persistent steps to his other children from their mother. The likelihood of this continuing with M if the father had access to her was virtually certain. The trial judge concluded that the risks to M if the father were given access were simply too great to serve her best interests. As expressed by the trial judge near the end of his comprehensive reasons: ‘Both the father and the two oldest children actively participated in the disobedience of the court order placing the third child in foster care during the investigation of very serious protection concerns. I have no reason to have confidence that the father or the older children would respect terms of a new access order, such as terms prohibiting negative comments about the mother or pressure on the child [M] to move to the father’s home, any more than they have respected previous court orders on various subjects. I note particularly the father’s attitude toward the order for reconciliation counselling involving the third child during the protection case. The father was having none of it, and neither was the child as a result. So it could never happen. I see no sign of positive change on the father’s part in promoting a reconciliation of the three oldest children with the mother.’ We agree with this description and conclusion. [Unchanged: sole custody of youngest child with mother, and no contact by father or older children living with him and alienated from mother.]”
S. (C.) v. S. (M.), 2010 CarswellOnt 1493, 2010 ONCA 196, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1650, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1660, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1664, [2010] W.D.F.L. 1697, 76 R.F.L. (6th) 14, 262 O.A.C. 225 (Ontario Court of Appeal 2010) [¶¶ 6-7].

Spears v. Spears:

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

“[Father’s every-other-weekend access increased to joint custody, father ‘to break any deadlock if the parents could not agree on major decisions.’] In the case at bar, the Father made a number of additional submissions in support of his position that the Mother’s conduct from the commencement of this litigation if not before, was in bad faith. His list begins with the Mother mov-
ing from Ottawa to Toronto to thwart the Father’s access to his son. He alleges that the Mother’s bad faith conduct continued following separation and continued throughout to alienate the Father and child, attempting to poison the child’s mind against the Father, making false reports of abuse by the Father, and fabricating evidence on the stand in an attempt to discredit the Father and strengthen her case for sole custody. . . . Both Ms. Mann and this Court came to independent conclusions that the Father’s concern that the Mother was undermining his relationship with his son was real. As a result of the Mother’s conduct Jacob has suffered and is suffering emotionally and requires counselling that the Father will have to pay for. I also found that the Mother gave false evidence in several respects, all aimed at discrediting the Father and painting him in an unfavourable light while bolstering her claim for sole custody. The Mother asserts that she ‘fought this case believing that her son was being abused by the Father’. I do not accept that assertion. Given my findings of fact, it is clear that the Mother did not truly believe that Jacob was being abused by his Father but rather made up most of these allegations in support of her claim for sole custody. . . . In this case, the Mother’s conduct was clearly connected to her goal of undermining the Father’s relationship with Jacob, denying the Father access to his son, obtaining sole custody for herself and retaining control over Jacob. In fact, it was my concern that she would not keep Jacob’s interests in mind when deciding important decisions, that I gave final say to the Father. In light of these findings at trial I find that the Mother acted in bad faith. Her conduct has vastly prolonged and increased the costs of this litigation and caused emotional damage to both Jacob and his Father.”
Spears v. Spears, 2010 CarswellOnt 7102, 2010 ONSC 4882, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1302, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1295, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1293, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1284, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1244, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1238, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1237, [2011] W.D.F.L. 1227, 94 R.F.L. (6th) 229 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶¶ 1, 18-20].

Stojanovic v. Stojanovic:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Horowitz added that early therapeutic intervention to try to resolve alienation is clearly preferable in order to avoid belief systems becoming set and irreversible, to remove the stress that all family members are under and to prevent the situation from becoming the new normal, with the alienated parent becoming exhausted and ultimately capitulating. Having met the children, he was of the view that their alienation, though serious and in need of intervention, was not as great as he had expected.”
Stojanovic v. Stojanovic, 2010 CarswellOnt 10860, [2011] W.D.F.L. 4633, 7 R.F.L. (7th) 167 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2010) [¶ 7].

Children’s Aid Society of Dufferin (County) v. T. (A.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“In my view, even given the fact that the respondent mother has not been permitted to file recent material here, the evidence of her continued acts of parental alienation and contempt for the orders of the court is incontrovertible and continuous up until the hearing of the motion here. [Removal of child from mother and placed with father under Society supervision.]”
Children’s Aid Society of Dufferin (County) v. T. (A.), 2011 CarswellOnt 871, 2011 ONCJ 52, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2883, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2906 (Ontario Court of Justice 2011) [¶ 28].

Cole v. Cole:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The parties’ three children, now 19, 16 and 14 are estranged from their father. The children have been involved in the conflict to the extent they have been ordered to participate in reunification therapy . . . have been ordered to undergo an assessment . . . and the court has commented ‘the children are not seeing their father and the issue of parental alienation is very much engaged.’ The record before me includes numerous emails the wife sent the husband over the years regarding issues in the litigation. The tone is angry and belligerent. In many cases she also copied the children with the emails. [Wife’s motion for judgment on agreement dismissed.]”
Cole v. Cole, 2011 CarswellOnt 8459, 2011 ONSC 4794, [2012] W.D.F.L. 536 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2011) [¶ 4].

Emiris v. Kwama-Lawu:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Apart from the fact that neither party has put forward a parenting plan should they remain in Canada, the remainder of the evidence clearly supports the mother having sole custody. The evidence described above demonstrates that the father has put his own interests ahead of those of the children, even in situations involving risk to them. The evidence of domestic violence, parental alienation and controlling behaviour of the father also strongly supports an order that the mother have sole custody of the children. [Sole custody to mother. Mother’s petition for permission to move with the children to Belgium granted.]”
Emiris v. Kwama-Lawu, 2011 CarswellOnt 1808, 2011 ONSC 1693, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2857, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2779, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2795, [2011] W.D.F.L. 2820 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2011) [¶ 68].

Lopez v. Dotzko:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“I find that there has been parental alienation by Mr. Dotzko in the present case. Parental alienation results from a combination of programming of indoctrinations by one parent adding to and/or colouring a child’s own feelings toward the other parent causing a negative emotional atmosphere between the child and the parent victim. . . . Mr. Dotzko has denigrated Ms. Lopez to Jasmin and has instilled in her an unreasonable apprehension toward her mother. Having done so, he refused to co-operate with the reconnection counselling, in breach of the Order of Snowie J. dated February 17, 2006, when he refused to continue counselling with the registered psychologist, Jancy King, whom Ms. Lopez had selected. [Access to the mother increased pending trial.]”
Lopez v. Dotzko, 2011 CarswellOnt 14025, 2011 ONSC 6778, 210 A.C.W.S. (3d) 146 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2011) [¶¶ 110-11].

Scervino v. Scervino:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“On the part of Mr. Scervino, his clear alienating behaviour has had the most devastating affect on the children. If he persists in including the children in adult issues and continues to consciously or unconsciously transmit to the children his continued upset and anger at their mother, the applicant’s relationship with the children will continue to deteriorate. [Joint custody, residence alternating weekly.]”
Scervino v. Scervino, 2011 CarswellOnt 7845, 2011 ONSC 4246, [2012] W.D.F.L. 421, [2012] W.D.F.L. 400, 4 R.F.L. (7th) 363 (Ontario Superior Court of Justice 2011) [¶ 52].

Canada: Quebec

B. (D.) v. M. (I.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“There will be no partition of earnings registered pursuant to the Registered Retirement Saving Plan held by Mr. B. by reason of the bad faith demonstrated by Mrs. M [who] is responsible for the parental alienation of the children towards their father.”
B. (D.) v. M. (I.), 1999 CarswellQue 2773, [1999] R.D.F. 655, REJB 1999-13905, J.E. 99-1709 (Cour supérieure du Québec 1999) [¶¶ 34, 39].

L. (D.) v. Listuguj Police Service:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“[Mother abducted the children from their father in California. Since October 1995, and up to March 1999, the actions of the mother amount to alienation of the father, limiting him to one period of visitation in the presence of armed native guards in March of 1997 and discouraging any telephone or other type of communication. He became a total stranger after 3 1/2 years, despite the fact that the mother, before Justice Goodwin, gave her word that she would return them if he so ordered, (July 4th 1996). [Police ordered to return children to custody of father, visits for mother; psych assistance to the children, psych assessments of parents, etc.]”
L. (D.) v. Listuguj Police Service, 1999 CarswellQue 3725 [2000] R.D.F. 35, REJB 1999-15479, J.E. 2000-58 (Cour supérieure du Québec 1999) [¶ 16].

C. (C.) v. S. (M.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“These reports as well as the file speak volumes and the Court has no choice but to conclude that there is clear and unequivocal parental alienation by Plaintiff. . . . T. attended the therapy sessions regularly but unfortunately to no avail. . . . Defendant has also realized that there would be more harm done to his relationship with T., or to the future of this relationship, if she was to be removed from her present environment and ordered to live with him by force. . . . Defendant continues to pay child support for T. and has spared no efforts and no expenses to establish a normal relationship with her, but still she refuses to see him. . . . There is no law that forces a daughter to love her father and T. will have to live with her conscience. . . . The Court hopes that someday, somehow, T. will realize that her behaviour towards her father is unwarranted and profoundly unjust. . . . Defendant declares that his door will always be opened for T. . . . Sadly, there is nothing else to say. . . . FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DECLARES that T. has been the subject of clear and unequivocal parental alienation by Plaintiff; GIVES act of Defendant’s declaration that his door will always be opened for her daughter; DECLARES that T. may see and visit Defendant as less, or preferably as much as she so wishes.”
C. (C.) v. S. (M.), 2005 CarswellQue 5394, EYB 2005-90538 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2005) [¶¶ 4, 7-13].

G. (K.) v. L. (A.):

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The actions of Plaintiff up to the present time were to some extent tantamount to parental alienation. The Court is satisfied that the granting of the custody to Defendant will facilitate a better relationship between the children and both parents.”
G. (K.) v. L. (A.), 2005 CarswellQue 7895, EYB 2005-93585 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2005) [¶ 11].

M. (A.) v. D. (T.An.):

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Van Gijseghem recommends that the status quo be continued with one important change to reduce ‘transitions’ and ‘interruptions’ of their time with Mother. . . . These recommendations were made taking into consideration both the desires and preferences of all the parties, including those of the children. . . . The Court agrees with the findings of Dr. Van Gijseghem as regards the parties’ characters, the presence of alienation by the children of ‘the paternal world’ and the sources of such alienation. It agrees as well with the proposals and recommendations he makes to combat this alienation, which he observes ‘is dangerously spreading to cultural and religious matters.’”
M. (A.) c. D. (T.An.), 2005 CarswellQue 8857, EYB 2005-95238 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2005) [¶¶ 25, 27].

M. (A.) v. G. (S.Mi.):

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“CONSIDERING that the Mother’s behaviour is tantamount to constituting, according to the evidence, a case of parental alienation, while also ignoring that under Quebec law, both the Mother and the Father exercise jointly the parental authority over their child; FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT . . . MAINTAINS the Father’s Motion; GRANTS joint legal custody of the child [orders mother to return child to the father at her own cost, psychosocial evaluation of the child, reserves right to father to bring motion for sole custody or to modify terms if mother stays in Canada longer than summer months].”
M. (A.) v. G. (S.Mi.), 2005 CarswellQue 13670, EYB 2005-112014 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2005) [¶¶ 6, 12-25].

Droit de la famille—06276:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ORALLY AND REGISTERED, THE COURT: PRAYS ACT of the Mother’s commitment to continue a therapy with either a psychologist or a psychiatrist in order to address her parental alienation syndrome as identified in the expert’s report of Mrs. Julie Legault filed in the Court record as Exhibit R-1, and therefore ORDERS the Mother to pursue forthwith such therapy to address her parental alienation syndrome with a psychologist or a psychiatrist who is a member in good standing of the relevant professional order, has a working knowledge of parental alienation syndrome, has reviewed the report of Mrs. Legault (Exhibit R-1), and is agreeable to treat the Mother.”
Droit de la famille—06276, 2006 CarswellQue 12399, 2006 QCCS 6536, EYB 2006-114456 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2006) [¶ 8].

Droit de la famille—07494:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“In light of the evidence and the testimonies at the hearing, the Court shares the explanations and preoccupations arising from [Social Worker 6]‘s analysis. The Court comes to the conclusion that a shared custody in the present circumstances is not at all in the best interest of the children and that a change of custody is essential to put an end to the beginning of parental alien-
ation from the mother. [Change of custody from mother to father, access to the mother, no contact by mother during time with father.]”
Droit de la famille—07494, 2007 CarswellQue 1681, EYB 2007-116128 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2007) [¶ 67].

Droit de la famille—08329:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“One of our colleagues, in an earlier decision in this file, found that ‘without the shadow of a doubt, the two children suffer from a parental alienation syndrome.’”
Droit de la famille—08329, 2008 CarswellQue 1302, EYB 2008-129766, 2008 QCCS 529 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2008) [¶ 13].

Droit de la famille—081642:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“[Psychologist Lynda] Greenberg’s particularly voluminous report, upon which she testified at trial, was completed on October 10, 2007. . . . From her testimony and report, the following facts appear: X suffers from parental alienation, having practically cut all ties with his mother since 2006. . . . [Divorce granted, sole custody to mother, access to father.]”
Droit de la famille—081642, 2008 CarswellQue 14853, 2008 QCCS 3093, EYB 2008-173144 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2008) [¶¶ 42-43].

Droit de la famille—083035:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“After hearing the evidence, he recommended at trial that the Mother had not modified her behaviour and that if any relationship between X and her Father was to be salvaged, the Father had to have exclusive custody of both children. Concurrently, he recommended that exclusive custody must necessarily be given for Y to the Father, or else he would be the next to be alienated by the Mother from the Father. . . . On the evidence heard before it, the Court cannot conclude that X has a rational basis for not wanting to see her Father. On the contrary, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to support all of the eight indicia for severe parental alienation listed by expert Rodrigue Otis . . . X and Y are entitled to have a healthy and positive rela-
tionship with both their parents. The Court is satisfied that this ultimate goal may only be achieved by the Father having exclusive custody of X and Y, with only very limited contact through limited-supervised access and written correspondence with the Mother for a minimum period.”
Droit de la famille—083035, 2008 CarswellQue 11701, 2008 QCCS 5680, EYB 2008-151181, J.E. 2009-265, [2009] R.D.F. 118 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2008) [¶¶ 202, 223, 232].

Droit de la famille—09115:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“While the Mother’s parental capacity may be questionable, in light of her refusal to attend the hearing or even submit to an independent expertise, the evidence does not justify the Court at this point to remove her custody rights altogether. The Father is not at this time asking for sole custody, even though the parental alienation elements brought into evidence may favour a change of custody altogether. [Nine-month four-step custody schedule transitioning to joint custody from sole custody with the mother.]”
Droit de la famille—09115, 2009 CarswellQue 704 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2009) [¶ 48].

Droit de la famille—091013:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The mother’s expert, Madame Madeleine Gendron, states that X needs stability and one home base. She states that her mother is the primary parental figure, is the most apt to have custody and should have sole custody because it is in X’s best interest. . . . Madame Gendron concludes that the father is alienating X from her mother. [Continued joint custody.]”
Droit de la famille—091013, 2009 CarswellQue 4207, 2009 QCCS 1928, EYB 2009-158289 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2009) [¶¶ 16-17].

Droit de la famille – 091497:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“With the proof adduced including Stéfanie Bélanger’s reports . . . and her testimony at trial, the Court is convinced that Mrs R. is presently a danger to her children. She has started a process of parental alienation, which has to be interrupted immediately before she succeeds. [Mother having defied repeated court orders to vacate the marital home: sole custody to the Father, ‘no contact between the children and the mother except through emails until the children’s therapist decides otherwise in the best interest of the children.’]”
Droit de la famille—091497, 2009 CarswellQue 6399, 2009 QCCS 2821, EYB 2009-160730 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2009) [¶ 26].

Protection de la jeunesse—091498:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The Court finds that [the trial court’s] conclusions of alienating behaviour by the Mother were based on an appreciation supported by the evidence. [Rejection of excessive focus placed by the trial judge on sexual abuse and parental alienation as a ground for appeal of lower court’s decision to grant sole custody to the Father with supervised access to the Mother.]”
Protection de la jeunesse—091498, 2009 CarswellQue 7640, EYB 2009-162097, 2009 QCCS 3390, J.E. 2009-1506 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2009) [¶ 69].

Droit de la famille—10936:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“[The court] ACKNOWLEDGES the Mother’s undertaking and ORDERS her to continue her specialized therapy with Ms. Paule Lamontagne, an expert recognized by the Court in therapy dealing with parental alienation, so that she may address the issues of parental alienation raised in the judgment of November 28, 2008 and to continue to follow a regular course of therapy with psychologist Ms. Lamontagne up to the point that Ms. Lamontagne provides to the Superior Court and the parties a report confirming that the Mother has addressed this issue through therapy and is at a low or no risk to commit such acts or similar acts involving the denigration of the Father and his spouse in front of the children. The Court recommends that Ms. Lamontagne read the interim judgment and this concluding judgment for background and context.”
Droit de la famille—10936, 2010 CarswellQue 4060, EYB 2010-173366, 2010 QCCS 1745 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2010) [¶ 220].

Droit de la famille – 103029:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Despite being at the interim level, the Court sees no reason to disregard Dr. Worenklein’s report. As already stated, the expert has met with all members of the family and administered clinical tests to the parents. He has also studied the file and the different reports and recommendations made by professionals over the years. . . . Even though the Court will not follow all of the expert’s recommendations, the present situation cannot be tolerated. Custody arrangements have to be modified, and the alienating conduct of Mrs. K. controlled as much as possible. . . . The Court considers that this is an emergency situation that has to be addressed because the alienating conduct continues and the evidence demonstrates that it continues to produce detrimental effects on the children. [Custody of children changed from joint to primary custody with the father with visitation for mother.]”
Droit de la famille—103029, 2010 CarswellQue 12285, EYB 2010-182263, 2010 QCCS 5545 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2010) [¶¶ 38-40, 72-73].

Droit de la famille—103365:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The Court is very preoccupied by the manner in which Mrs. Z. imposes her views to Mr. C. as far as the best interest of X is concerned. . . . The best interest of X is to develop a good relationship with both parents. The father may decide during his time of access of the activities with his son including the obligation to go to school seven days a week. . . . The Court is even more preoccupied by the way Mrs Z. addresses to X that all that happens is Mr. C.’s fault. . . . Mrs. Z. has to understand that such a conduct, which amounts to parental alienation, is bad for X. Should such a conduct continue would question her ability to maintain full custody to X. [Custody of child with mother continued, with access for father.]”
Droit de la famille—103365, 2010 CarswellQue 13610, EYB 2010-183703, 2010 QCCS 6170 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2010) [¶¶ 35-38].

Droit de la famille—1140:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“In conclusion, the expert does find that there are positive elements which show openness: the Mother does find certain positive contributions by the Father; X does now collaborate in having visits with the Father; X can readjust his negative perception of the Father when given evidence to the contrary and the Father is capable himself of questioning certain actions which may be perceived as negative by X. . . . In brief, there is hope that the ‘certain parental alienation’ can be both stopped and avoided completely in the future. This can be achieved by the collaboration of all three persons. [Custody to mother, access rights to father.]”
Droit de la famille—1140, 2011 CarswellQue 269, 2011 QCCS 100, EYB 2011-185033 (Cour supérieure du Québec, 2011) [¶ 55].

Droit de la famille—112978:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Since the experts were clear in their assertion that both parents have comparable parenting capacity, leaving aside the greater potential to alienate that the father’s expert imputes to the mother though not to him, it is that question which must be disposed of first. . . . Neither party has behaved totally admirably but on the facts, if anything, the father had already begun to alienate, while it remains to be seen whether the mother is the alienation risk he claims she is. [Sole custody to mother with access for father.]”
Droit de la famille—112978, 2011 CarswellQue 10501, 2011 QCCS 5067, 209 A.C.W.S. (3d) 120, EYB 2011-196324 (Cour supérieure du Québec 2011) [¶¶ 27, 56, 206].

Canada: Saskatchewan

Beck v. Beck:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“Dr. Josef Schubert, a registered psychologist and professor emeritus of the Department of Psychology, University of Regina, was called by the petitioner to comment on Ms. Grosse’s report. He concluded that Jonathan was showing the effects of ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome.’. . . . Both Dr. Schubert and Ms. Grosse based their conclusion to a large extent on the fact that Jonathan has refused to visit his mother and cannot find anything positive to say about her. Both suggest that custody be granted to the petitioner and that for an initial period of time the respondent not enjoy access. They both emphasized that should custody be granted to the petitioner, it would be a severely traumatic experience for Jonathan and it would be essential that he take extensive counselling to help him adjust to the change in circumstances. They also testified that there was no guarantee that such counselling would be successful. . . . While I do not question Dr. Schubert’s qualifications, I do not believe a great deal of weight can be given to his opinions and testimony. He did not have the opportunity to interview Jonathan and relied entire-
ly on the accuracy of Ms. Grosse’s report in formulating his conclusions. He testified that he had never treated a child with ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome’ and relied entirely on the text of Dr. Gardner in formulating his opinion in this regard. [Custody to remain with the father, who agrees to counseling for the son and himself.]”
Beck v. Beck, 1996 CarswellSask 419 (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 1996) [¶¶ 9-11].

Scott v. Scott:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“I find that it would not be in the best interests of the children to order that the respondent’s access to the children be subject to their wishes. To so order would facilitate the petitioner’s interference with the children’s access to their father and undermine his parenting. This in turn would create problems including alienation of the children’s affection for their father. Accordingly, the access order shall not be subject to the children’s wishes.”
Scott v. Scott, 1998 CarswellSask 338 (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 1998) [¶ 7].

Ollinger v. Ollinger:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to alienating parent ♀ over target parent ♂

“The children are alienated from their father. Even if the mother is at fault the Court cannot use the children and give custody to the father to punish her. . . . There will be an order that the mother shall have custody of the children. The father will have such access and on such conditions as the mother may agree. [Custody changed from joint to sole custody with the mother.]”
Ollinger v. Ollinger, 1999 CarswellSask 636 (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 1999) [¶¶ 4-5].

L’Heureux v. L’Heureux:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Access ordered for target parent: ♂

“Based on the evidence before me, I find that Denise has alienated Jenna from her father. Dr. Harding, in her 1998 report, clearly felt parental alienation by Denise was occurring. [Counseling for the child; Father having voluntarily discontinued visitation, ordered to communicate with daughter thru therapist via letters and/or videos.]”
L’Heureux v. L’Heureux, 2003 CarswellSask 211, 2003 SKQB 132, 39 R.F.L. (5th) 330 (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 2003) [¶ 10].

Polsfut v. Polsfut:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“In spite of Court orders and the Children’s Voices Report to the contrary, the respondent has continued for 16 months in his development and promotion of the parental alienation of the petitioner by her children. [Divorce granted: Joint custody, but father’s custody, access and contact suspended for the first three months.]”
Polsfut v. Polsfut, 2008 CarswellSask 160, (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 2008) [¶ 25].

Haberman v. Haberman:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“I have now found that the petitioner’s conduct, whether intended or not, constitutes alienation. There may be other psychological problems which do not technically fall under the heading of alienation but which contribute to the petitioner’s conduct in misleading the child and interfering with Dakota’s relationship with his mother. Previous interim orders have been disobeyed. If this judgment is to effect a positive and healthy change for this family I hereby direct that the petitioner shall, as a condition of his maintaining the primary residence and primary care of Dakota, seek psychological counseling forthwith. . . . The petitioner shall contact Dr. Harding or any other doctoral psychologist of like standing within 30 days of this judgment. . . . The petitioner is to attend counselling [sic] at the times, places and frequency that the psychologist may direct and for so long as the psychologist may direct in order to gain insight and understanding into his behavior and the attitudes which foster such behavior towards Dakota and the respondent. If the petitioner refuses or defaults in seeking and completing this counselling [sic], which I consider essential to his healthy parenting of Dakota as befits Dakota’s best interests, such refusal will, in my opinion, constitute a material change of circumstance warranting a change of custody and primary residence of Dakota.”
Haberman v. Haberman, 2011 CarswellSask 727, 2011 SKQB 415, [2012] W.D.F.L. 803, [2012] W.D.F.L. 801, [2012] W.D.F.L. 800, [2012] W.D.F.L. 798, 209 A.C.W.S. (3d) 883, 10 R.F.L. (7th) 274 (Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench 2011) [¶ 236].

<< Back