National Coalition Against Parental Alienation

Promoting Awareness and Solutionssm

Wiederholt v. Fischer:

Alienating Parent: ♀♂

“In July 1990, Clair moved the court to transfer the primary placement of the three children to him. The basis for Clair’s motion was that the children suffered from ‘Parental Alienation Syndrome,’ the condition was caused by Bonnie, and the only cure was to transfer primary placement of the children to him. . . . A three-day trial was held before circuit court Judge Fred H. Hazlewood. The court found that the three children were alienated from their father and that the alienation was attributed to both parents.”
Wiederholt v. Fischer, 169 Wis.2d 524, 529-30, 485 N.W.2d 442 (Wis.App. 1992).

Janell S. v. J.R.S.:


Notes: Lower court found the mother to be an alienator. Appellate Court rejected that finding based on the lower court refusing to hear evidence of father’s physical abuse.

“The parties agreed that they would take the testimony of Dr. Heinz. His testimony was that after evaluating Janell, J.R. and Jake, he concluded that Janell exhibited parental alienation syndrome. . . .”
Janell S. v. J.R.S., 214 Wis.2d. 591, 571 N.W.2d 924 (Table), 1997 WL 603407 at *2 (Wis.App.).

Fischer v. Fischer:


Notes: Expert attempting to prevent alienation.

“Dr. Marc Ackerman . . . recommended placement of all three children with Deborah. He did, however, suggest that a change of the son’s placement from Deborah to Victor should be considered if Deborah’s behavior ‘escalates to the level of parental alienation syndrome’ or if the son ‘begins to alienate his father, as a result of living in a household with his two older sisters and mother who are already engaging in that behavior.’”
Fischer v. Fischer, 221 Wis.2d 221, 584 N.W.2d 233 (Table), 1998 WL 391744 at *2 (Wis.App.)

Hughes v. Hughes:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂

“The court made the following findings, among others: At the time of divorce, Jennifer and Julie each had a good relationship with Mark, but presently Jennifer is alienated from her father and Dawn was a significant force in the breakdown of that relationship.”
Hughes v. Hughes, 223 Wis.2d 111, 116, 588 N.W.2d 346 (Wis.App. 1998).

In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nichols:

Alienating Parent: ♀ — Lawyer disciplined in part for frivolous lawsuit against psychologist. Psychologist had opined that the lawyer’s client was perpetrating alienation.

“A psychologist testified on behalf of the child’s father that he saw evidence of ‘emotional incest’ or parental alienation syndrome attributable to Attorney Nichols’ client.”
In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Nichols, 253 Wis.2d 149, 151, 645 N.W.2d 270 (Wis. 2002).

Finster v. Finster:


Alienating Parent: ♀

“The court found that Diane engaged in a concerted course of conduct resulting in ‘parental alienation syndrome.’”
Finster v. Finster, 267 Wis.2d 278, 2003 WL 22005755 at *3 (Wis.App.).

Marriage of Conde v. Krueger:


Alienating Parent: ♀ — Custody to target parent: ♂ — Physical abuse

“Family Court Counselor Susan Wendorf drafted the report of the assessment, with the assistance of psychologist Michelle Roets. . . . At the trial on Krueger’s motion, Wendorf testified concerning her conclusion, joined by Dr. Roets, that Conde had systematically alienated Giselle from her father. . . . The trial court found, based primarily on Wendorf’s report and testimony, that Conde had subjected Giselle to ‘parental alienation syndrome.’”
Marriage of Conde v. Krueger, 266 Wis.2d 1060, 668 N.W.2d 562 (Table), 2003 WL 21544167 at *1 (Wis.App.).

<< Back