Consistently, when the Family Court gets in right in
parental alienation cases, it is due to the fact that the alienating parent is
exposed as being who they really are - the alienating parent - as opposed to
how they try (and often succeed) to present themselves, as being the victim of
the other parent's wrath. Prior to this "light bulb" going on for the
Court, the lion's share of the focus is typically on the falsely accused
targeted parent, who has very often spent all of their energy and resources of
defending them self against things that they never did. Very often, when it is
suggested that litigation strategy be focused on exposing the alienating
parent's actual behavior as opposed to only defending the targeted parent, the
attorney will be resistant to this, arguing that they want their client - the
targeted parent - to be perceived as the "reasonable one" and that to
go after the alienating parent would damage this "reasonable" image.
In cases where parental alienation is not present, I could not agree more.
However, when it is present, the goal of exposing the alienating parent for who
they really are, is the only strategy that will ultimately result in success.
Take for example the case of Dwayne Wade, the NBA basketball star. He had been
accused of every kind of abuse and misjudgment imaginable. The case however
turned on a dime when the mother of their two little boys was exposed as being
an obsessive alienating parent. In that particular case, Mr. Wade's lawyer, Jim
Pritikin had Mrs. Wade on the stand testifying for over eight days in a row!
This is unheard of, however the correctly reasoned strategy was that she would
be unable to maintain her image as the concerned mother, for such a long period
of time testifying on the stand. In discussing and creating this strategy, we
reasoned that she would be unable to contain herself if she was asked open
ended questions, which ended up being the case. When one keeps in mind that
cross examination questions are allowed to be leading and directive (as opposed
to direct examination), such a strategy is legally counterintuitive. It may
have been counterintuitive, but it worked. The Judge could clearly see that she
was consumed with anger and hatred for the children's father, that she was
capable and willing to accuse him of things that he did not do, and that she
was willing to draw their minor children into this campaign. I believe that
this insight and the courts consequent ruling for the boys to live with their
father, was only due to the fact that she was successfully exposed as being the
alienating parent via her own testimony. Again, the purpose of all of this this
was to make sure the court had a clear understanding of who she is and has
been. Very often, the identity of each parent is the result of a careful
presentation to the court, so that the Judge has a certain specific reaction to
that parent. In the case of alienating parents, they need to be exposed! They
are the one's who have much to hide, and if the litigation strategy does not
seek to "smoke them out", it is my view that the case has little
chance of success. The attorney must often be convinced that this is a viable
and useful strategy, but this is the only strategy I have seen work
We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?