National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

In re Marriage of McDole:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“A dissolution decree was entered in November 1988. McDole and Hatch had each sought primary residential care of Joseph. The court found each parent was capable of caring for Joseph, but awarded primary residential care to Hatch, with substantial residential time for McDole. In its written decree, the court expressly ordered that Hatch cease attempts to alienate her son James, born in a prior marriage, from McDole, finding that such conduct was poisoning McDole’s relationship with Joseph.”
In re Marriage of McDole, 122 Wash.2d 604, 859 P.2d 1239, 1240 (1993).

Marriage of Mazzi:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The court found that this conduct poisoned the atmosphere, was calculated to alienate the father, and was indicative of a willingness to act in a manner that could injure the child. The trial court’s finding that the mother’s abusive use of conflict created a potential danger of serious damage to the child’s psychological development was supported by substantial evidence.”
Marriage of Mazzi, 92 Wash.App. 1055, 1998 WL 729687 at *4 (Wash.App. Div. 1 1998).

Belgarde v. Grunhurd:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“[T]he trial court found that Curtis had engaged in a pattern of behavior including physical and emotional abuse of the child as well as alienation of J.B. from his father, and granted Belgarde’s petition for modification.”
Belgarde v. Grunhurd, 2000 WL 748115 at *1 (Wash.App. Div. 1).

In re Parentage of G.C.M.-N.:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂

“The court found that Noble’s testimony as to this conduct was credible. The court expressed its concern about Martin’s history of parental alienation, but found that such behavior had not yet affected G.M.-N. Finally, the court found that Martin needs anger management treatment ‘because of the potential future psychological damage to [G.M.-N.].’”
In re Parentage of G.C.M.-N., 2001 WL 879002 at *4 (Wash.App. Div. 1).

In re Marriage of Shen:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Dunne concluded that Tiffany suffered from ‘parental alienation syndrome,’ and felt unable to accept her father without fear of rejecting her mother.”
In re Marriage of Shen, 111 Wash.App. 1046, 2002 WL 1011545 at *2 (Wash.App. Div. 1 2002).

Saleh v. Parsadmehr:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Custody to target parent: ♀

“[Father] contends that the trial court’s order modifying the parties’ parenting plan and its several post-trial orders holding him in contempt of court are not supported by substantial evidence. He also contends that the trial court erred by requiring him to pay a portion of [mother’s] attorney fees for the modification action based on pre-litigation intransigence, and by ordering him to pay all of the guardian ad litem’s fees to be incurred in preparation for a review hearing to be held six months following the trial. And he contends that the trial court erred by ruling that he had waived an objection to certain post-trial evidence of contemptuous conduct by failing to object when the evidence was first introduced in support of the mother’s motion for contempt. [Order affirmed in its entirety.] . . . The court . . . found that the boys were so thoroughly alienated from their mother, to their detriment, that they would require ongoing therapy with Dr. Chan in order to become reunified with their mother. The court found that the mother would benefit from parenting therapy, and that the father was in need of specialized parental alienation therapy in order to reach an understanding of the serious emotional harm he had done to the boys by reason of the by-then firmly entrenched alienating conduct in which he had engaged.”
Saleh v. Parsadmehr, 117 Wash.App. 1017, 2003 WL 21321829 at *3 (Wash.App. Div. 1).

Leegwater v. Leegwater:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Dr. Wassmer also concluded the children ‘appear to be at risk for significant emotional distress and alienation from their father as a result of the mother’s behavior’ and are in ‘danger of long term psychological damage.’”
Leegwater v. Leegwater, 131 Wash.App. 1036, 2006 WL 322192 at *3 (Wash.App. Div. 1).

In re Marriage of Corbin:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Similarly, we reject Reimen’s assertion that when the court found she engaged in parental alienation and an abusive use of conflict, it was referring to her legal resistance to Corbin’s motion to modify the boys’ parenting plan. Reimen fails to point to any evidence in the record showing that to be the court’s reasoning, and we find none. Instead, the court cited numerous actions that Reimen engaged in before Corbin moved to modify the parenting plan, as well as her actions toward the boys and Corbin during these proceedings, that constituted parental alienation and the abusive use of conflict. These findings fully support the trial court’s ruling.”
In re Marriage of Corbin, 146 Wash.App. 1023, 2008 WL 2955873 at *2 (Wash.App. Div. 1).

In re Marriage of Hollingshead:

[UNPUBLISHED]

Alienating Parent: ♀

“Two experts, family counselor June West, and mental health counselor Dr. J. Michael Olivero, were appointed to report to the court regarding the quality of the father’s visits with the children . . . Dr. Olivero . . . was clearly critical of Hollingshead and concluded her significant issues with Wilson were negatively impacting the children and resulting in parental alienation.”
In re Marriage of Hollingshead, 2010 WL 3220618 at *1-2 (Wash.App.Div.3).

<< Back