Pages

Monday, August 31, 2015

AB Case Law - PA acknowledged and action supported

I apologize for the delay but I just discovered this comment on the UofAlberta Law Blog about an Alberta Parental Alienation case - Letourneau vs Letourneau 2014 ABCA 156 - from May 2014. 

In this case Justice Sanderman was the Case Management Judge (Letourneau v Letourneau, 2014 ABQB 5) and he ordered that a 14yr old daughter who had been alienated from her Dad be allowed normal weekend access (Sat + overnight + Sun) as well as 10 days for summer holiday according to the Dad's Holiday schedule UN-INTERRUPTED by the Mom so they can attempt to recover their relationship - which was absent.

Mom appealed the Court Order and it was denied!

Among the important points were I believe:
  • Justice Sanderman took over Case Management in March 2010 and signed the Divorce Judgement and Corollary Relief Order in April 2012.
  • Since the beginning the only problematic area has been the lack of a relationship between the Dad and his 2 daughters (unfortunately at the start the eldest who was 15 has now aged out of the courts jurisdiction).
  • When Case Management was established a Practice Note 7 Intervention Team was put in place.
  • Mom was not in favour of this and convinced Dad to abandon this in favour of them working something out.  They could not come to an agreement and decided to try mediation which failed and then arbitration which failed. 
  • In retrospect it seems to have been folly to believe that allowing Mom any control over anything would just frustrate the whole exercise.
  • In a report by the Practice Note 7 Intervention Team they said "this was the worst case of parental alienation that any of the team members had witnessed."
  • The mother by design or not has turned the girls against their Dad.
  • They all act fearful of him despite spending virtually no time with him.
  • Dad was a Principal with Edmonton Catholic Schools when he retired in June 30, 2013 at age 56.  He has never had any incident while a teacher or principal to merit concern over his suitability as a parent.
  • Standard of Review: The Appeal judges note that a Court Order is highly factual and considerable deference is paid to them - especially where a Case Management Judge has been highly involved with a case for over 3 years. 
  • The standard for Appeal of such an order allows for appellate intervention only where the judge below erred in law or made a material error in his or her appreciation of the facts: Van de Perre v Edwards, 2001 SCC 60 (CanLII) at para 13, [2001] 2 SCR 1014 [Van de Perre]. 
  • Mom argued that "the Best Interests of the Child" had not been considered - especially the "wishes" of the child and her fear of her Dad - but the Appellate Judges disagreed. It seemed clear that the "child's wishes" were more accurately a vicarious expression of the controlling parent’s wishes which should not be taken into account in crafting an access order in the child’s best interests. Refer to Tonowski v Tonowski, 2002 ABQB 1018 (CanLII) at para 18 for further direction. 
  • Mom also argued that it seemed to be the Judges opinion that Parental Alienation existed but Dad disagreed and a member of the intervention team (Barbara Sheptycki) orally reported at a case management meeting in December 2012 that the parental alienation had worsened. Hence the Appellate Judges agreed that all evidence supported Justice Sanderman's conclusion that no progress had been made on his finding of Parental Alienation and as such see no basis for an intervention.
  • Two other objections raised by Mom were: 1) That the child should have had her own representation so her voice could have been heard and 2) Mom was surprised when the Judge ordered overnight access. Both were denied as there was ample evidence referred to in transcripts that both issues were "live" and under discussion at various points in past 2 years transcripts of Case Management and Intervention Team conferences. 
  • Appeal was dismissed with Costs to the Dad to be offset against his Monthly Support obligations.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Without knowing it - an Alienation story


I saw this short article in Psych Today at the library recently (not available online) and thought it a touching account of PA "from the past" (1960's?) well before the term was coined.  It is also notable that it is included in a collection of articles called "Blended" about the challenges and issues involved with Blended families - something anyone who has been divorced/re-coupled/step-parenting can relate to.
"Keep your father a secret" was the code I lived by fearing that the truth would make me an outcast. 
I wanted to be the fatherless daughter my mother desired.   But what if your beloved mother hates the man you came from? 
After my mother died I received a chilly email from my sister informing me that our mother had decided not to divide her estate equally, but instead leave the bulk of it to my sister and brother. 
"You have a father" was the explanation. 
                  Excerpts from "The Proof" by Gigi Rosenberg 

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Issues in PA for Family Court Professionals - June 2014

I enclose this presentation made in June 2014 by the New York Chapter of the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in New York.


It included these worthwhile segments:
  • The Spectrum of Parental Alienation and Estrangement: Challenges for Mental Health Professionals, Attorneys and Courts by Bernice H. Schaul Ph.D
  • Parental Alienation: Why Courts should Intervene by Amy J.L.Baker
  • Ethical Issues Confronting the Attorney for the Child by Harriet Weinberger
  • Strategy's in Representing each Party in Parental Alienation or Estrangement Cases by Susan Bender
  • Relief Available from the Court and a Review of Significant Court Decisions by Hon. Jacqueline Silbermann (Retired)
  • The Child's Attorney and the Alienated Child - Approaches to resolving the Ethical Dilemma of Diminished Capacity by Jamie Rosen
  • DSM-5 - What you need to know about whats New and Old by Lawrence Jay Braunstein
======================================================================
Most of these topics are directed at Court Professionals - Lawyers, Court Experts and Judges - and provides insights and advice on the current state of knowledge about Parental Alienation and Estrangement, how Officers of the Court can address Ethical challenges of representing their cases and why Action is necessary. 

LINK (217 page PDF)

Friday, August 28, 2015

International Conference on Shared Parenting - 9-11 December, 2015 in Bonn, Germany

International Conference on Shared Parenting 2015

Best Practices for Legislative and Psycho-Social Implementation

Bonn, Germany, 9-11 December, 2015


Second Announcement / Preliminary Program

Status: 2015-08-21


The International Conference on Shared Parenting 2015 will take place on 9-11 December, 2015 in Bonn, Germany. Following the first international conference in July 2014, experts from science, family professions and civil society will gather from across the world at the “Gustav-Stresemann-Institut (GSI)” in Bonn to present their research and discuss best practices for legislative and psycho-social implementation of shared parenting as a viable and beneficial solution for children whose parents are living apart.

The conference language is English, simultaneous translation will be provided in English, French and German for all Plenary Sessions and part of Workshop presentations.

The event will be jointly chaired by the President of the International Council on Shared Parenting (ICSP), Prof. Edward Kruk, MSW, PhD, University of British Columbia, Canada, and the Chair of the ICSP Scientific Committee,Prof. Dr. Hildegund Sünderhauf, Lutheran University Nuremberg, Germany.

The International Council on Shared Parenting (ICSP) is an international association with individual members from the sectors science, family professions and civil society. The purpose of the association is first, the dissemination and advancement of scientific knowledge on the needs and rights (“best interests”) of children whose parents are living apart, and second, to formulate evidence-based recommendations about the legal, judicial and practical implementation of shared parenting.

Registration – including a special offer for accommodation at the conference venue – is scheduled to start by mid-September 2015.

Contact:
Angela Hoffmeyer, Secretary General
Phone: +49-170-800 46 15
E-mail: conference at twohomes.org


Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies that Compromise Decisions in Court and in Therapy

Recently this article by Canadian Sociologist and Equal Parenting Advocate Ed Kruck was in Psychology Today.


Recent Advances in Understanding Parental Alienation

Implications of Parental Alienation Research for Family-Based Intervention - Posted Jul 12, 2015

Dr. Richard Warshak of the University of Texas has just published a new paper in the journal, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, entitled, “Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies that Compromise Decisions in Court and in Therapy.” Parental alienation is a mental condition in which a child, usually one whose parents have been engaged in a high conflict separation, allies him or herself with an alienating parent and rejects a relationship with the other parent without legitimate justification. Warshak's article is directed not only to researchers but also to mental health professionals, and family lawyers and judges. Its purpose is to identify and correct common misconceptions about research on alienated children, and examine implications for assessment and intervention. The article contains important practice recommendations for both therapists and legal practitioners.
Dr. Warshak's starting point is the assertion is that mistaken beliefs about the genesis of parental alienation and appropriate remedies have shaped both socio-legal policy and therapeutic and legal practice in ways that have failed to meet children’s needs during and after parental separation, and therefore are contrary to the principle of the best interest of the child. The article identifies and examines ten mistaken assumptions, each in detail. Note that there is no empirical evidence to support any of the following assumptions.
Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies:
1. Children never unreasonably reject the parent with whom they spend the most time,
2. Children never unreasonably reject mothers,
3. Each parent contributes equally to a child’s alienation,
4. Alienation is a child’s transient, short-lived response to the parents’ separation,
5. Rejecting a parent is a short-term healthy coping mechanism,
6. Young children living with an alienating parent need no intervention,
7. Alienated adolescents’ stated preferences should dominate custody decisions,
8. Children who appear to function well outside the family need no intervention,
9. Severely alienated children are best treated with traditional therapy techniques while living primarily with their favored parent,
10. Separating children from an alienating parent is traumatic.
The article provides a summary of the research on parental alienation that has emerged over the past decade. As with Warshak's (2014) article, "Social Science and ParentingPlans for Young Children: A Consensus Report," it supports shared parental responsibility as in the best interests of most children of divorce, and as a remedy for parental alienation. It is an important contribution to understanding the most common errors in judicial practice and social policy in this arena, as well as in mental health practice.  It is the implications for intervention with children and families that should be of special interest to us.
One of the most controversial points is the last, "Separating children from an alienating parent is traumatic." Alienation and isolation by a parent in the absence of a child protection order is damaging to a child, and is itself a child protection concern. The key for children is to reunite with the alienated parent, ideally with the support of the other parent, which necessarily entails temporary separation from that parent. However, complete separation from an alienating parent may be a form of alienation in itself.
Another mistaken assumption that struck me is, "Young children living with an alienating parent need no intervention." It seems difficult to believe that such an assumption still exists, but there has been a widespread and persistent denial by some practitioners and policymakers about the reality of parental alienation. The fact that "parental alienation syndrome" is not identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the AmericanPsychiatric Association, Fifth Edition (DSM-V), for example, does not mean that parental alienation does not exist; as Warshak's consensus statement and other meta-analyses have demonstrated, parental alienation is much more widespread than is commonly assumed.
In addition, as Warshak has written, although the DSM-V has no specific diagnosis of "parental alienation," the DSM-V includes, under the heading “Relational Problems” and the sub-heading “Problems Related to Family Upbringing,” two diagnostic categories that describe children who are irrationally alienated from a parent. The first is “Parent-Child Relational Problem,” which reads, “Typically, the parent-child relational problem is associated with impaired functioning in behavioral, cognitive, or affective domains.” Examples of impaired cognitive functioning include the domain of the alienated child’s relationship to the rejected parent: “negative attributions of the other’s intentions, hostility toward or scapegoating of the other, and unwarranted feelings of estrangement.”
The second DSM-V category descriptive of alienated children is “Child Affected by Parental Relationship Distress.” This category is used “when the focus of clinical attention is the negative effects of parental relationship discord (e.g., high levels of conflict, distress, or disparagement) on a child in the family.” Descriptions of the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral problems of children who unreasonably reject a parent in the shadow of that parent’s disparagement by the other parent clearly fit in this category. The general acceptance of the concept of unreasonable rejection of a parent as indicated in both empirical research and the DSM-V makes it difficult for professionals to maintain credibility while denying the existence of parental alienation.
Yet favored parents’ disavowal of responsibility for their children’s rejection of the other parent continues to find support among advocates who claim that the concept of unjustified parental alienation is harmful to children. They maintain that the concept of parental alienation is a legal strategy used by abusive parents to deflect blame for their children’s fear and hatred of them. In this view, briefly, children who reject parents always have valid reasons and all "hated parents" have no one to blame for their suffering but themselves. Such advocates deny any possibility that children’s rejection of their parents could have predominantly irrational roots.
In contrast to denial of the problem’s existence is the consensus statement on the desirability of shared parenting following parental separation for most children (Warshak, 2014). In alienation situations, favoured parents’ behavior constitutes psychological abuse when they manipulate and influence children to participate in depriving themselves oflove, nurturance, and involvement with their other parent. Denial of this form of abuse of children is reminiscent of society’s denial in the early twentieth century, Warshak writes, of the prevalence of physical and sexual abuse of children. The prevalence of such denial has prompted surveys addressing the issues of whether children can reject a parent whose behavior does not warrant such rejection, and whether the rejection can be due in part to the influence of the favored parent. A survey taken at the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ annual (2014) conference reported 98% agreement “in support of the basic tenet of parental alienation: children can be manipulated by one parent to reject the other parent who does not deserve to be rejected.”
For the child, the biopsychosocial-spiritual effects of parental alienation are devastating. For both the alienated parent and child, the removal and denial of contact in the absence of neglect or abuse constitute cruel and unusual treatment. Adversarial court processes often add salt to the wound of both parents and children. This new research dispelling parental alienation fallacies thus represents a call to action. As a form of child maltreatment, parental alienation is a serious child protection matter as it undermines a basic principle of social justice for children: the right to know and be cared for by both of one's parents.
Warshak, R. (2015). Ten Parental Alienation Fallacies that Compromise Decisions in Court and in Therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
Warshak, R. (2014). Social Science and Parenting Plans for Young Children: A Consensus Report. Psychology, Public Policy and Law.




Thursday, August 27, 2015

Kids Come Last - The Effect of Family Law Involvement in Parental Alienation by C. Giancarlo and K. Rottmann

Finally the results of research on how Court effects Families affected by Parental Alienation in Alberta and B.C. by Christine Giancarlo at Mount Royal College in Calgary is out.












































LINK (22 page PDF)

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Australian Senator looking for Ideas on Reforming Family Law


Australian Senator John Madigan is seeking ideas on how to Reform Australian Family Law and has set up a website to solicit options and ideas across a broad range of topics.  The website is:


Please let him know your thoughts on these issues - including of course how to stop the Courts exacerbating Parental Alienation. The Common-Law tradition unites/informs much of our practices and basic assumptions across all Western nations - so we might find alot of common cause together.