National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Walden v. Walden:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“The conclusion of both forensic evaluations was that it was . . . the father who was primarily responsible for the children’s emotional disturbance, as a result of his attempts to alienate their natural affection for their mother.”
Walden v. Walden, 112 A.D.2d 1035, 1036-37, 492 N.Y.S.2d 827 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1985).

O’Connor v. O’Connor:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“A review of the court’s decision indicates that it gave careful consideration to these factors. In deciding to award custody to plaintiff, the court also significantly relied on its finding that prior to the marital discord the children had a close relationship with both parents but that, thereafter, defendant ‘embarked on [a] course of conduct which in effect alienated the affection and love which the children had naturally developed for [plaintiff].’ In our view this was entirely proper. The record supports the finding that defendant was primarily responsible for attempting to alienate the children’s affection for plaintiff.”
O’Connor v. O’Connor, 146 A.D.2d 909, 911, 536 N.Y.S.2d 903 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1989).

Karen B v. Clyde M.:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Shortly after the alleged abuse was disclosed to the mother, Bette Malachowski, a trained therapist familiar with the validation technique, conducted three separate interviews with the child and concluded that no abuse had taken place. She furthermore was suspicious of the mother’s motivation and stated that in her report. When Ms. Malachowski testified many months later, she reiterated those concerns, and after having read Dr. Sack’s report while on the witness stand, recalled that the mother had made an almost exact verbatim statement to her that was attributed to the child in Dr. Sack’s report.” [opinion goes on to cite Gardner, the Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse, at 110 (1987)]. “The aura of the allegation, irrespective of its falsehood, may stand over him and affected him for the rest of his life. Likewise, by involving her own daughter in her nefarious scheme, she may have inflicted irreparable psychological damage on her. Like Medea, she is ready to sacrifice her child to accomplish her selfish goal.”
Karen B v. Clyde M., 151 Misc.2d 794, 799, 800-01, 574 N.Y.S.2d 267 (N.Y.Fam.Ct. 1991).

Matter of Jaclyn P.:

Notes: Expert testified as to alienation by ♀, but court found expert evidence flawed, and that sexual abuse of children by ♂ had in fact been shown by preponderance: remitted to Family Court for dispositional hearing.

“Dr. Weinstein further opined that the children’s alleged refusals to visit with their father after the March 24, 1991, visit were the result of their mother’s alienation of them against their father.”
Matter of Jacklyn P., 179 A.D.2d 646, 650, 578 N.Y.S.2d 252 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 1992).

Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher:

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

“[A]fter 16 months of observing the parties in therapy, Dr. Reubins unequivocally stated that he saw no signs of ‘parental alienation syndrome.’”
Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 A.D.2d 363, 587 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y.A.D 1992).

Matter of J.F. v. L.F:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Both expert witnesses testified that the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) exists in this case. The psychologist who evaluated the children and provided a written report to the court found that PAS was ‘clear’ and ‘definite’ with both children.”
Matter of J.F. v. L.F., 181 Misc.2d 722, 724 n 2, 694 N.Y.S.2d 592, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99408 (Misc.2d 1999).

Matter of Hughes v. Sivertsen:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“In view of the exceptional circumstances created by the father inciting the son to run away from the mother’s home, and his attempts to alienate the son from the mother, the Family . . . Court providently exercised its discretion in restricting the father’s visitation with the son to two supervised visits per month.”
Matter of Hughes v. Sivertsen, 275 A.D.2d 414, 414-15, 712 N.Y.S.2d 613 (N.Y.A.D. 2000).

In re Kevin M.:

Alienating Parent: Foster ♀♂ towards biological parents whose rights were not terminated

“Dr. O’Brien’s testimony also suggests that Kevin has had adult assistance in ‘helping the story along’ regarding respondent S.’s past abusive conduct, raising questions as to who may have prompted and encouraged such parental alienation. Thus, it preliminarily appears that in addition to being harmed by parental abuse, Kevin may have also been harmed by inappropriate continuing care.”
In re Kevin M., 187 Misc.2d 820, 822, 724 N.Y.S.2d 816 (N.Y.Fam.Ct. 2001).

Smith v. Bombard:

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

“[W]ith the uncontroverted testimony of two psychologists confirming that Ciara’s refusal to see respondent was not the result of ‘parental alienation syndrome,’ we find that he failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating that his support obligation for Ciara should have been suspended.”

Smith v. Bombard, 294 A.D.2d 673, 675, 741 N.Y.S.2d 336 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2002).

Bobinski v. Bobinski:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The mother’s conduct, inter alia, in alienating the children from their father, interfering with their relationships, and disregarding the father’s rights as a joint custodial parent, were acts so inconsistent with the best interests of the children (see Stern v. Stern, 304 A.D.2d 649, 758 N.Y.S.2d 155; Young v. Young, 212 A.D.2d 114, 122, 628 N.Y.S.2d 957; Matter of J.F. v. L.F., 181 Misc.2d 722, 694 N.Y.S.2d 592, affd. 270 A.D.2d 489, 705 N.Y.S.2d 281), that it cannot be said that the Supreme Court’s determination [to grant father’s motion to change the custody provisions of the parties’ judgment of divorce from joint custody to sole custody in his favor] lacked a sound and substantial basis (see Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra).”
Bobinski v. Bobinski, 9 A.D.3d 441, 441-42, 780 N.Y.S.2d 185 (N.Y. 2004).

Jennifer H. v. Paul F.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Dr. Reubins testified that during the course of his evaluation he met with the parties and the child cumulatively forty-two times and prepared an extensive report. . . . Dr. Reubins characterized the ‘pow-wow’ notes presented to him by respondent as ‘the most compelling example of parental alienation I’ve ever seen’ defining ‘parental alienation’ as ‘a conscious or unconscious attempt to alienate a child from a parent.’”
Jennifer H. v. Paul F., 6 Misc.3d 1013(A), 2004 WL 3131979 at *10 (N.Y.Fam.Ct.).

Matter of Whitley v. Leonard:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Finding a pattern of parental alienation, Family Court appropriately discounted the child’s expressed preferences and directed a new custody arrangement that would repair and enhance the child’s relationship with his father while continuing regular contact with his mother.”
Matter of Whitley v. Leonard, 5 A.D.3d 825, 827, 772 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. 2004).

K.L. v. M.L.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The court finds that the record in this case clearly establishes such parental alienation by the plaintiff against the defendant.”
K.L. v. M.L., 9 Misc.3d 1128(A), 862 N.Y.S.2d 808 at *6 (Table) (N.Y.Sup. 2005).

Rodman v. Friedman:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The court based its finding that the mother had alienated the child from the father not simply on the forensic report, but also on its in camera interview with the child, another forensic report, and numerous documents, interviews and court appearances.”
Rodman v. Friedman, 33 A.D.3d 400, 401, 826 N.Y.S.2d 1 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2006).

F.S.-P. v. A.H.R.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“This matter is unique to this Court in that it does not involve a non-custodial parent requesting suspension of a current child support order due to parental alienation. Instead, the Respondent seeks to invoke parental alienation as an affirmative defense to the custodial parent’s attempt to establish a support order . . . [the Court’s analysis] . . . [I]n the absence of statutory authority or case law, this Court determines that parental alienation may be invoked as an affirmative defense without an established support order. In accordance with this Court’s oral decision of July 25, 2007, the oral in limine motion is denied.”
F.S.-P. v. A.H.R., 17 Misc.3d 390, 390-91, 393, 844 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y.Fam.Ct. 2007).

Lew v. Sobel:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“While one parent’s alienation of a child from the other parent is an act inconsistent with the best interests of the child (see Zafran v. Zafran, 28 A.D.3d 753, 755, 814 N.Y.S.2d 669), here, the children’s bond to the alienating parent is so strong that a change of custody would be harmful to the children without extraordinary efforts by both parents and extensive therapeutic, psy-
chological intervention.”
Lew v. Sobel, 46 A.D.3d 893, 895, 849 N.Y.S.2d 586 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2007).

M.W. v. S.W.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Although addressed separately above, it is too evident to require further discussion that a unilateral decision to relocate the parties’ children, and repeated instances of interference with access to their children, are forms of parental alienation. Here, unfortunately, defendant’s efforts to undermine plaintiff’s relationship with the children extended much farther.”
M.W. v. S.W., 15 Misc.3d 1127(A), 841 N.Y.S.2d 219 at *14 (Table) (N.Y.Sup. 2007).

P.M. v. S.M.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂

“Throughout the litigation the defendant has displayed rude and disrespectful behavior towards the plaintiff. The defendant has disparaged her and her family. The Court credits the testimony of Dr. Kaplan who testified that there were instances where he saw the defendant to be disparaging of the plaintiff. Dr. Kaplan testified that he saw no evidence that the children were alienated from their father, or that plaintiff had attempted to alienate the children from him. Significantly, Dr. Kaplan was compelled to detail the parties’ acrimony, divided opinions on medical and other issues, defendant’s failure to seek a psychiatric consultation, and defendant’s disrespect for his wife.”
P.M. v. S.M., 17 Misc.3d 1122(A) at *7, 851 N.Y.S.2d 71 (Table) (N.Y.Sup. 2007).

Lauren R. v. Ted R.:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court. . . . The acts perpetrated by the plaintiff were not only in willful violation of the Stipulation of Settlement, as incorporated into the Judgment of Divorce, but such as to demonstrate a continuing and calculated effort to violate the parental access of the defendant to the infant issue . . . considering the extent, nature, and continuing pattern of alienation perpetrated by the plaintiff, it is clear that plaintiff’s conduct was calculated to and did, in fact, impair, impede or prejudice the rights and remedies of the defendant herein. . . . The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement, incorporated but not merged into their Judgment of Divorce. The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant’s parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of ‘good faith,’ and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father. The unfortunate history here also reflects the plaintiff’s hiring and firing of three different counsel, expressed disdain towards the children’s attorney, and utter disregard for the authority of the Court. . . . [A]fter careful consideration of the circumstances of the nature and extent of the multiple instances of violation of the court order, the plaintiff is sentenced to a period of incarceration for six weekends, to be served on the first and third weekends of each month for the months of June, July and August, 2010. Prior to these weekends of the plaintiff’s incarceration, she shall transport the children to the defendant’s home to assure their continued care and well being.”
Lauren R. v. Ted R., 27 Misc.3d 1227(A), 911 N.Y.S.2d 693 (Table), 2010 WL 2089283 at **1, 8, 9 (N.Y.Sup.), 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 50931(U).

Matter of Joseph YY. v. Terri YY.:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“To aid in the resolution of these ongoing visitation disputes, in August 2006, Family Court directed that the parties undergo a psychological evaluation, which was conducted by David Horenstein. During this evaluation, the mother reported that she believed the father to be a pedophile, that the younger child disclosed to her a questionable incident in which the father touched her on her ‘tickle spot’ between her legs, and that her now adult child from a previous relationship disclosed that, when she was 12 or 13 years old, the father requested that she remove her clothes. During this evaluation, the older child denied that the father ever touched her on this ‘tickle spot.’ Horenstein noted that the children’s accountings of their father’s alleged inappropriate behavior seemed to be verbatim with reports made by the mother, and he opined, among other things, that the children displayed ‘classical evidence of having been alienated from their father’ as a result of the influence of the mother.”
Matter of Joseph YY. v. Terri YY., 75 A.D.3d 863, 864, 905 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. 2010).

Matter of Matthews v. Matthews:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“Furthermore, in light of the evidence in the record that the father harmed the children by disobeying court orders and using religion to alienate them from the mother, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting the father from discussing religion with the children.”
Matter of Matthews v. Matthews, 72 A.D.3d 1631, , 899 N.Y.S.2d 496 (N.Y. 2010).

Matter of Bond v. MacLeod:

Alienating Parent: ♂

“Although the children’s desires regarding visitation should be considered, Family Court appropriately noted that their wishes are not determinative (see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v. Kolba, 60 AD3d 774, 775 [2009]) and, in any event, the court indicated that it believed some degree of parental alienation by the father had occurred (see Matter of Bronson v. Bronson, 63 AD3d 1205, 1207 [2009]). Based on the . . . foregoing, we do not find that the termination of the mother’s visitation would serve the children’s best interests.”
Matter of Bond v. MacLeod, 83 A.D.3d 1304, 921 N.Y.S.2d 671 (N.Y. 2011).

Matter of Dobies v. Brefka:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Unmarried parents, Custody to target parent: ♂

“While Marvin Fine, a psychologist who treated the children from 2003 to 2008, testified that it would be ‘devastating’ to remove Nikolas from the mother’s custody, Family Court found that his testimony was of ‘limited utility’ because, among other things, he was unaware of a prior psychologist’s report opining that the mother had alienated the children from the father and because he failed to focus on the issue of parental alienation in therapy. Klopott, who treated Nikolas commencing in 2008, testified that removing Nikolas from his mother’s custody might be necessary to preserve his relationship with the father, and that although Nikolas would be initially ‘devastated,’ he would slowly accept the change . . . Viewing the totality of the circumstances and according deference to Family Court’s credibility assessments, we find ample support in the record for Family Court’s determination that it is in Nikolas’ best interests for the father to have sole legal and physical custody of him.”
Matter of Dobies v. Brefka, 83 A.D.3d 1148, 1151-52, 921 N.Y.S.2d 349 (N.Y. 2011).

Matter of Opalka v. Skinner:

Alienating Parent: ♀

“[T]he record supports the following findings of fact. First, the mother has engaged in actions which, even if fueled by actual beliefs on her part, unfairly operated to vilify the . . . father and alienate him from his children. Specifically, she asked the children to call three different men—after only weeks into each relationship-‘daddy.’”
Matter of Opalka v. Skinner, 81 A.D.3d 1005, 1006-07, 916 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y. 2011).

Matter of Reyes v. Polanco:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“Here, there was sound and substantial basis in the record to grant the mother’s petition for sole custody of the parties’ son and daughter. The evidence at the hearing established that the father had severely alienated the children, especially the son, from the mother.”
Matter of Reyes v. Polanco, 83 A.D.3d 849, 850, 922 N.Y.S.2d 104 (N.Y. 2011).

McMahan v. McMahan:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The Plaintiff’s testimony was received over a period of seven (7) days. Through his testimony and that of psychologists Juliet Lesser (Elizabeth’s therapist), Allison Bell (Vladimir’s therapist) and Amy J. L. Baker (alienation expert), the Plaintiff methodically demonstrated that the Defendant routinely engaged in behavior that alienated the Children from the Plaintiff. Dr. Baker categorized the alienation as ‘moderate’ and offered specific examples. She testified that a series of eleven (11) taped conversations between the Defendant and her children, which were received into evidence, were rife with instances of parental alienation.”
McMahan v. McMahan, 32 Misc.3d 1204(A) at *1, 932 N.Y.S.2d 761 (Table) (N.Y.Sup. 2011).

MM v. AM:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“By Order dated February 24, 2009, after a hearing which included the testimony of the court-appointed therapist, Dr. Jennifer Campbell, plaintiff was awarded temporary custody of the parties’ daughters, ‘V’ and ‘I’ (Bivona, J., J.S.C.). Justice Bivona based the change in custody ‘upon a finding of defendant having engaged in a continuous pattern of aggressive parental alienation.’ By Order dated May 8, 2009, Justice Bivona referred the issue of permanent sole and legal custody of ‘I’, ‘V’ and ‘C’ to trial. Subsequently, the plaintiff withdrew his application for permanent custody of ‘C’.”
MM v. AM, 32 Misc.3d 1205(A) at *2, 932 N.Y.S.2d 761 (Table) (N.Y.Sup. 2011).

P.C. v. K.C.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody granted temporarily to father, pending custody trial

“While assigning great weight to the father’s conduct in causing alienation between the mother and the children, Dr. Abrams never analyzed the degree to which the mother is culpable in causing the deterioration in her relationship with the children. In sum, Dr. Abrams’ recommendation did not take into account the totality of the circumstances—the standard this Court must consider in making any determination as to what is in the best interests of the children.”
P.C. v. K.C., 32 Misc.3d 1207(A) at *4, 932 N.Y.S.2d 761 (Table) (N.Y.Sup. 2011).

<< Back