 |
The following is my argument to the Court in the Parental Alienation case, Nov 2014. Identities are protected by substituting information contained inside the parentheses. |
YOUR HONOR, DR. (ABC). FAMILY COURT SERVICES FOUND GREAT CONFLICT, (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA) WAS BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CONFLICT AND PHYSICAL HARM TO (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA).
DR. (ABC) STARTED THE CONJOINT COUNSELING. HE (THE DOCTOR) TESTIFIED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THOSE FINDINGS. HE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS PART OF HIS PURPOSE TO EVALUATE WHAT WAS CAUSING THE CONFLICT AND HARM AND THE PLACING (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA) IN THE MIDDLE.
DR. (ABC) TESTIFIED THAT HE FOUND NO INCIDENT OF (THE TARGETED PARENT) CREATING CONFLICT. THE CONFLICT WAS CAUSED BY (THE PARENTAL ALIENATION PERPETRATING PARENT).
(THE PERPETRATING PARENT) DID NUMEROUS THINGS THAT PLACED THE CHILD INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CONFLICT. (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) HAD EXPRESSED TO THE (CHILD—VICTIM OF PA) THAT THE (TARGETED PARENT) WAS ESSENTIALLY OF NO VALUE. (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) DID THAT DIRECTLY TO DR. (ABC) IN HIS OFFICE. HE FOUND THAT THE CONFLICT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HARMFUL TO THE CHILD (VICTIM OF PA). HE FOUND THAT IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, DETRIMENTAL TO THE CHILD'S WELFARE FOR JOINT CUSTODY, JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO CONTINUE.
(THE DOCTOR) DESCRIBED THE SITUATION AS STAGE THREE OF PARENTAL ALIENATION. HE DESCRIBED THAT (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA) WAS NOT ALLOWED TO LOVE (THE TARGETED PARENT) IN THE (PERPETRATING PARENT’S) HOME. (THE CHILD) WAS NOT ALLOWED TO RESPECT THE (TARGETED PARENT). HE SAW (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA) AT TIMES WHEN (THE CHILD) HAD COME FROM (THE PERPETRATING PARENT)'S CUSTODY AND TIMES WHEN (THE CHILD) CAME FROM (THE TARGETED PARENT)'S CUSTODY, AND HE FOUND A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CHILD, A CHILD WHO WAS HEALTHY IN (THE TARGETED PARENT)'S CUSTODY.
HE FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE, ALTHOUGH (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) REPEATED SUBSTANCE ABUSE OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
AND THERE WERE TWO STATEMENTS FROM (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA). ONE, EXHIBIT (X), IN WHICH (THE CHILD VICTIM OF PA) IS DESCRIBING SUBSTANCE ABUSE (OF THE TARGET PARENT) TAKING UP THE STATEMENTS OF THE (PERPETRATING PARENT). DR. (ABC) TESTIFIED THAT THIS IS COMMON IN THIS TYPE OF A SITUATION BECAUSE (THE PERPETRATING PARENT)'S LOVE IS CONDITIONAL LOVE, AND THE CHILD QUICKLY LEARNS THAT (THE CHILD) MUST ADOPT THE ATTITUDES OF THE (PERPETRATING PARENT) IN ORDER TO BE IN A POSITION OF LOVE WITH THE (PERPETRATING PARENT).
(THE CHILD VICTIM) WANTS TO LOVE THE (PERPETRATING PARENT). (THE CHILD) WANTS TO LOVE THE (TARGETED PARENT). (THE CHILD) DOES LOVE BOTH PARENTS, AND THIS (PARENTAL ALIENATION) IS CHILD ABUSE, AS DR. (ABC) TESTIFIED, FOR (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) TO ORCHESTRATE A SITUATION WITH (THE CHILD VICTIM) WHERE (PERPETRATING PARENT) IS TRYING TO CAUSE (THE CHILD VICTIM) TO REJECT AND WITHDRAW FROM (THE CHILD’S) (TARGETED PARENT) 100 PERCENT.
BASED ON THIS TESTIMONY, WE REQUEST SOLE PHYSICAL AND SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY OF (THE CHILD VICTIM) TO THE (TARGETED PARENT), AND TO TAKE (THE PA PERPETRATING PARENT)'S VISITATION DOWN TO MINIMAL, AND HAVE (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) WORK WITH A THERAPIST, WHOEVER, OF (PERPETRATING PARENT’S) CHOICE, WHO WILL THEN WORK WITH DR. (ABC) AND WILL TRY TO TRACK, OR THEY WILL TRY TO TRACK PROGRESS THAT (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) IS MAKING THROUGH ACTIONS, NOT JUST WORDS, WHERE (THE PERPETRATING PARENT) WILL NO LONGER PUT (THE CHILD VICTIM) AT RISK.
THANK YOU.
Thomas M. Huguenor originally shared to
When I was successful in prosecuting a child custody parental alienation (PA) case, a couple of weeks ago, I was thankful because PA is child abuse that is rarely proven. When I say "proven" I mean to the extent that the Court significantly reduces the parenting time for the PP (parenting who is perpetrating PA). In a PA case, which I handled, a year ago, the Court's expert witness found that the PP had committed only acts of "bad parenting" although it was established, through another independent psychologist, that this parent had committed 20 acts of PA; and that the victim child had completely withdrawn from the Targeted Parent. Many experts are reluctant to acknowledge that, or they simply cannot recognize when, significant acts of PA have been committed. Also, many Family Court judges have had little or no training, or work experience with PA. So, frequently, even when the Court finds wrongful actions have been taken by a parent; there is no finding of PA and nothing other than a warning to the PP to stop this behavior. PA is not visible in the way that a physical beating would be. It can't be diagnosed by a police officer coming to a home after a 911 call. Please see the referenced article by Dr. Major which explains why PA is so hard to prove and, when it is, the finding rarely results in change of custody. However, allow me to conclude which the following: PA can be established in court. PA can be stopped and even reversed through appropriate court orders. In the next post I will include my closing argument to the Court so that you may see what factors I stressed as significant and my requested child custody modification orders.
