Parental Alienation in Custody Disputes
New York courts have repeatedly recognized the effects of alienating behavior by a parent on children in custody and visitation determinations.
May 10, 2022 at 12:00 PM
11 minute read
Parental alienation was first recognized in New York custody cases by the Appellate Division in Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 A.D.2d 380 (2d Dep't 1978). There, the mother consented to the entry of judgment of divorce after the parties stipulated that she would retain custody of the children, subject to visitation rights of the husband. The stipulation also provided that she "shall have the right to remove her residence together with the children to Greenwich, Conn., subject to the approval of the Court." Within one month after the judgment was entered, she remarried, took the children, and moved to Illinois, without informing the husband of her or the children's location. She then commenced a proceeding in Illinois to register her New York divorce judgment and to redefine the husband's visitation rights. The husband made an application in Supreme Court to punish her for contempt for willfully failing to comply with the visitation provisions of the judgment of divorce and to transfer custody of the children to him, based upon the visitation improprieties. The Appellate Division directed that a hearing be held with respect to the father's application. In its decision, it stated that "the respondent's very act of preventing the two children of tender age from seeing and being with their father is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of the children as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the mother is unfit to act as custodial parent." See also Rosenstock v. Rosenstock, 162 A.D.3d 702 (2d Dep't 2018).
Parental alienation must be distinguished from "parental alienation syndrome," a disorder termed by child psychiatrist Richard A. Gardner in "Recent Trends in Divorce and Custody Litigation," Academy Forum, Volume 29, Number 2, Summer, 1985, p. 3-7. According to Gardner, parental alienation syndrome occurs when one parent deliberately or unconsciously attempts to alienate a child from the other parent. The parent who programs the child brings about the destruction of the bond between the other parent and the child. It is characterized by a cluster of eight symptoms that appear in the child. These include a campaign of denigration and hatred against the targeted parent; weak, absurd, or frivolous rationalizations for this deprecation and hatred; lack of the usual ambivalence about the targeted parent; strong assertions that the decision to reject the parent is theirs alone (the "independent-thinker phenomenon"); reflexive support of the favored parent in the conflict; lack of guilt over the treatment of the alienated parent; use of borrowed scenarios and phrases from the alienating parent; and the denigration not just of the targeted parent but also to that parent's extended family and friends. Gardner, R.A., The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Second Edition (1998).
Parental alienation syndrome is not generally accepted in the scientific community, as it is not an approved term or diagnosis in the field of psychiatry. No New York court has allowed the admission of testimony concerning parental alienation syndrome. It is not a diagnosis included in the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. See Montoya v. Davis, 66 N.Y.S.3d 350, n.3 (3d Dep't 2017).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Disclosures in Prenups: The Legal, Personal, and Strategic Considerations
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250