National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Moriarty v. Bradt:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Notes: The terms of visitation by grandparents changed on constitutional grounds. The finding of PAS was on part of the father against the family of deceased mother.

“There is a very bad relationship between [plaintiff] and the Bradts. The Family Services report indicates that [plaintiff] has alienated the children from the grandparents and that he tried to prevent visitation between [defendant] and the children.”
Moriarty v. Bradt, 2002 WL 34165907 at *5 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

Llewellyn v. Llewellyn:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀♂ — Custodial parent did not change, only the terms of child support were in dispute.

“While it is true that in his December 17, 2004 order, Judge Testa found that defendant improperly alienated her daughters’ affections toward their father, in that same order the judge made similar findings against plaintiff.”
Llewellyn v. Llewellyn, 2005 WL 3148243 at *6 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

E.I. v. L.I.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The court awarded custody of both children to defendant pursuant to Rule 5:3-7(a)(6), finding the transfer of custody to be in the children’s best interests. The court also temporarily suspended plaintiff’s visitation with the children pending a psychological evaluation of plaintiff and three to six months of psychotherapy. The court determined that the children needed to establish a relationship with their alienated father without any interference by the mother.”
E.I. v. L.I., 2006 WL 1764473 at *2 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. J.S.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Notes: Father’s rights terminated and guardianship granted to DYFS for purposes of consenting to adoption.

“Dr. Kenneth Goldberg testified as an expert for the defense. He conducted a psychological evaluation of J.S., but he did not evaluate Susan’s bond or attachment to either her maternal grandparents or her paternal grandparents. Dr. Goldberg acknowledged that his findings regarding J.S. were similar to Dr. Dyer’s: ‘[W]e both identified the narcissistic and antisocial traits. I think we both recognize that substance abuse . . . would be an issue, a problem. We both, I think, recognize that . . . being in prison is probably one of the most harmful things that [J.S.] could do to the child, by virtue of not being there. And that the contingency of being able to stay out of prison is pretty central to him being a . . . good enough father . . . And there was a bit of a parental alienation issue, you know, that I think both of us [were] kind of aware of. . . .’”
New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. J.S., 2006 WL 473956 at **1-2 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

V.U. v. L.U.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“In awarding custody of the parties’ two daughters to defendant and the custody of William to plaintiff, Judge Franklin meticulously considered all factors contained in N.J.S.A. 9:2-4c, and based his custody awards on what he determined to be “in the best interests of the children . . . ‘I fully recognize Dr. Rabinowitz’s concern that because of [defendant’s] parental alienation of the children, that these children cannot be considered ‘valid reporters concerning their feelings about their father, their feelings about their mother, past behavior, and past life events.’ For this reason, I decided to interview all of the children a second time in an effort to truly determine whether the children are well-adjusted and happy. I believe that [Mary] and [Carol] are thriving[,] and doing very well with [defendant].’”
V.U. v. L.U., 2006 WL 2707346 at **4, 5 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

Jennings v. Lathrop:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“On August 30, 2007, the trial court rendered a comprehensive seventy-six page oral decision, which included the following findings and conclusions: ‘Dr. Kagel believed and believes the [plaintiff] is consciously or unconsciously alienating [the child] from his father or coaching [the child]. . . . Dr. Kagel testified that, unsolicited, [the child] stated he wanted to stop his visits with his father, evidencing perhaps parental alienation or coaching. In addition, Dr. Kagel found it significant that, when asked, plaintiff could not say anything positive about the defendant. This is completely consistent with what I observed of the plaintiff during her testimony and what I infer from the evidence presented in this case.’”
Jennings v. Lathrop, 2008 WL 4901257 at *5 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

Cathrall v. Cathrall:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The judge found from listening to those tapes ‘that the children had been shown the pleadings and the children were enlisted in the effort to essentially alienate the father from his children.’”
Cathrall v. Cathrall, 2009 WL 690653 at *5 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

D.W. v. P.W.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“On the second day of the hearing, Judge Fleming heard testimony from Dr. Cooke, whom the parties stipulated as a qualified expert. Amplifying his three written reports, which were admitted into evidence without objection, Dr. Cooke discussed the mother’s attempts to alienate the children from their father.”
D.W. v. P.W., 2009 WL 587099 at *4 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

State v. A.T.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂♀

“Evidence in the record demonstrates that the son, who had lived with his father since December 5, 2006, was alienated from his mother and that the daughter was alienated from her father. Among other acts, A.T. has interfered with R.T.’s visitation with the daughter; R.T. has caused the utilities to be cut off at the marital home, occupied at the time by A.T.”
State v. A.T., 2009 WL 2878011 at *1 (N.J.Super.A.D.).

<< Back