National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Matter of Parsons:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“[T]he record shows that Father, rather than placing the welfare of the child above his personal desires, failed to comply with the court’s direction and purposely pursued a course of conduct designed to alienate Michael from his mother. This conduct was recognized by the majority of the witnesses in the case and resulted in the recommendation of the expert witnesses that custody of the child be granted to Mother.”

Matter of Parsons, 914 S.W.2d 889, 894 (Tenn.App. 1995).

Munday v. Munday:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Seidner noted that ‘too many indicators from previous evaluations’ reflected that the children were in a caretaking role in Mother’s home and were being actively alienated from Father.”
Munday v. Munday, 2000 WL 1154500 at *4 (Tenn.Ct.App.).

Lane v. Lane:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The trial court found that the wife had told Blair about her husband’s extramarital affair in order to alienate her daughter’s affections from husband.”
Lane v. Lane, 2001 WL 1523365 at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App.).

B.M.M. v. P.R.M.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The trial court also based its decision on the behavior of both Mother and Grandmother in Florida, clearly directed toward alienating Chrissy from Father and making it impossible for him to see her, and the trial judge’s justifiable conclusion that Mother could not be trusted with Chrissy.”
B.M.M. v. P.R.M., 2004 WL 1853418 at *22 (Tenn.Ct.App.).

Oliver v. Oliver:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“The trial court conducted a bench trial on February 26, 2002. The court found Ms. Oliver had set upon a course of behavior that had successfully alienated the child from Dr. Oliver. After concluding that Ms. Oliver was guilty of thirteen willful violations of the marital dissolution agreement and final divorce decree, the trial court sentenced her to a suspended 130-day jail sentence.”
Oliver v. Oliver, 2004 WL 892536 at *1 (Tenn.Ct.App.).

Costley v. Benjamin:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The trial judge’s comments following [the testimony of Dr. Michelle Coop, a child psychologist who had acted as the child’s therapist for fifteen months] show that he found it persuasive, [stating] ‘I will say that Parental Alienation Syndrome, it does make total sense to me, total sense, and this is the most extreme of cases.’”
Costley v. Benjamin, 2005 WL 1950114 at *13 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2005).

Smith v. Smith:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Pestrak conducted his evaluations in May and June of 2003. Both parties received copies of his reports, and copies were also filed under seal with the trial court. Dr. Pestrak’s reports stated that he ‘[did] not find any claims of sexual abuse to hold up to even modest scrutiny when data from all three parties [was] examined.’ The reports also noted that the child ‘is suffering and the evidence strongly suggests it [is] not due to any sexual abuse. Rather, it lines up with what we see when a conscious or unconscious effort is made by one parent [the mother] to alienate the child from the other parent.’”
Smith v. Smith, 2008 WL 1127855 at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App.).

Schroedel v. Bumgarner:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂

“Cathlyn C. Cannon, a licensed mental health counselor, senior licensed psychological examiner, and certified trauma specialist, testified at trial. Ms. Cannon performed a psychological and parenting evaluation of Mother and Stepfather. . . . Ms. Cannon testified: ‘I believe from the information given to me that it is highly probable that parental alienation is a factor in this case.’”
Schroedel v. Bumgarner, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 4024931 at **3-4 (Tenn.Ct.App.).

<< Back