National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Nauman v. Nauman:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Here, the record indicates that there was in fact a substantial and material change in circumstances since the decree of divorce was entered. Most importantly, mother has been unwilling to abide by the trial court’s orders regarding visitation, thereby aggravating an already hostile relationship between the parties. She has also attempted to alienate the children from their father, as shown by the children’s parroting of language used by mother in her arguments with father. Furthermore, mother has communicated her hostile feelings through the children rather than by direct communication with father, and she has allowed the children to read the legal documents in this case and has solicited their responses.”
Nauman v. Nauman, 445 N.W.2d 38, 39 (S.D. 1989).

Price v. Price:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“Considering Melinda’s history of attempting to alienate Stuart from Tom and her expression of anger for Tom to Stuart, we are convinced that Tom is the parent best equipped to handle Stuart’s ‘temporal, mental and moral welfare.’ We hold that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding physical custody to Melinda and we reverse.”
Price v. Price, 611 N.W.2d 425, 436, 2000 SD 64.

Pietrzak v. Schroeder:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Lower court found that the mother was an alienator.

Appellate Court rejected this finding

“Dr. Van Gilder testified that Thomas was exhibiting behaviors consistent with one or both parents engaging in parental alienation.”
Pietrzak v. Schroeder, 759 N.W.2d 734, 741 (S.D. 2009).

Kreps v. Kreps:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The trial court gave significant weight to Kelly’s deficiencies in this regard. It further found that the ‘detrimental effects and potential effects of Kelly’s attempts to alienate the children from Jason significantly outweigh the benefits of keeping the children in Kelly’s primary physical custody.’”
Kreps v. Kreps, 778 N.W.2d 835, 842 (2010 S.D. 12).

<< Back