National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Kevin S.E., Sr. v. Diana M.E.:

Alienating Parent: ♂ — Court undertook to do too little, too late

“It is thus extremely distressing that Appellee, according to the guardian ad litem, may have undertaken efforts to alienate the children from their mother. . . . Because the guardian ad litem saw convincing evidence that Appellee had already begun to be successful in his attempts at parental alienation, it would be advisable for the lower court to direct the guardian ad litem to continue to oversee this matter in the interest of encouraging and permitting the children to have a full, health, loving relationship with both parents.”
Kevin S.E., Sr. v. Diana M.E., 205 W.Va. 622, 628, 629, 520 S.E.2d 197 (1999).

State v. Donley:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Criminal proceedings

“In the conclusions of law section of the family court order, the court stated [that it had] never seen, in all it’s [sic] years of involvement with family issues, a more blatant example of parental alienation. The plaintiff’s failure to cooperate with counseling efforts, and failure to heed warnings by this Court were so obvious that this Court felt it had no choice but to award the defendant primary residential parent status during the pendency of this case. But the defendant faced such egregious difficulties with the children, that he gave up his primary residential . . . parent status and returned the children to the plaintiff.’ [Finding that the lower court abused its discretion by permitting the unabridged family court order to be introduced into evidence in its entirety where the probative value of the entire text of the order was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Appellant’s conviction overturned, new trial ordered.]”
State v. Donley, 216 W.Va. 368, 375-76, 607 S.E.2d 474 (W.Va. 2004).

<< Back