National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Becker v. Becker:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“In short, the trial judge found that Many was not guilty of sexual abuse of the children, and that Teresa made it all up and planted the notion in the children’s heads in order to alienate their father forever.”
Becker v. Becker, 613 So.2d 275 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1993).

Hollingsworth v. Semerad:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Although Dr. Prior conceded that some of the father’s behavior showed poor parenting and serious mistakes, he did not believe that it rose to the level of abuse. Dr. Prior also concluded that the father was the victim of parental alienation syndrome perpetrated against him by the mother and her family.”
Hollingsworth v. Semerad, 799 So.2d 658, 660 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2001).

White v. Kimrey:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“In the present case, Dr. E.H. Baker, a Louisiana psychologist, testified on behalf of the Whites. He testified that he had interviewed the Whites and the child as well as reviewing the reports of Dr. Susan B. Vigen and Dr. Sally Thigpen. He opined that the mother was trying to prevent the father’s access to the child. Dr. Baker further testified in effect that the mother was pro-
gramming the child to be negative as regards the father. He diagnosed the situation as parental alienation syndrome, which is harmful to the child. He further related that the accepted method of treatment for parental alienation syndrome is to give the child to the parent not causing the alienation. However, he does believe that the child should have contact with her mother.”
White v. Kimrey, 847 So.2d 157, 163 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2003).

State v. Malant:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“Contrary to the father’s assertions, the record contains sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings that the father’s behavior contributed to the child’s emotional and psychological harm as described by the psychologists, that he alienated the child from his mother.”
State v. Malant, 945 So.2d 189, 194, 41,670 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006).

Palazzolo v. Mire:

Alienating Parent: Adoptive ♀ — Custody to target parent: Birth ♀

“Dr. Jordan, the court-appointed psychologist/custody evaluator, was qualified as an expert in the field of clinical psychology. . . . According to Dr. Jordan, Ms. Mire engaged in some alienation tactics in the beginning, but that was not the primary reason why I.P. currently desired not to see Ms. Palazzolo. . . . Dr. Pellegrin, who was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology, was appointed by the court to conduct a second custody evaluation on Ms. Palazzolo’s behalf. Dr. Pellegrin conducted her evaluation over a three month period. . . . According to Dr. Pellegrin, a more accurate description of what Dr. Jordan [another qualified expert] found to be a lack of maternal bonding was a significant disruption in the maternal bonding or evidence of severe parental alienation. . . . Dr. Lockman, who was qualified as an expert in the area of development psychology and child development, testified . . . [as to] possible causes of disruption of the attachment [being] a parent leaving, having a psychotic problem, changing dramatically, being absent, or being the subject of parental alienation. . . . Moreover, ‘the conduct of one parent in denigrating the other parent and undermining the child’s relationship with that parent, an adult with whom the child has had a very important relationship, is a form of emotional abuse.’”
Palazzolo v. Mire, 10 So.3d 748, 758, 761, 764-65, 771 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009) (citing Nicholas Bala, Barbara-Jo Fidler, Dan Goldberg, & Claire Houston, Alienated Children and Parental Separation: Legal Responses in Canada’s Family Courts, 33 Queen’s L.J. 79, 88 (2007)).

Orrill v. Orrill:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“[T]he trial court found that J.O.’s alleged ‘fear’ of his father’s drinking was created in his mind by the actions of his mother. The trial court determined that in connection with his parents’ divorce, Mrs. Jenkins had unnecessarily exposed J.O. to the police adding more trauma to the child’s life. Her actions, the court stated, amounted to ‘parental alienation’ and demonstrated her unwillingness to facilitate a close relationship between J.O. and his father.”
Orrill v. Orrill, 5 So.3d 279 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009).

Watts v. Watts:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Howze testified that this case represented ‘probably’ the worst case of parental alienation she had ever seen.”
Watts v. Watts, 10 So.3d 855, 859 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2009).

<< Back