Introduction
Interference by one parent in the relationship of a child and the other parent is almost never in the child's best interests. In fact, in extreme cases, actions by one parent to alienate the affections of the child from the other parent, to interfere win the other parent's visitation rights, or to remove the child to a distant state or country can often lead to liability in tort. See generally E. Borris, "Torts Arising Out of Interference with Custody and Visitation," 7 Divorce Litigation 192 (1995). Tort liability is not always an option, however, as many courts refuse to award damages based upon interference with visitation rights. E.g., Cosner v. Ridinger, 882 P.2d 1243 (Wyo.1994).
A noncustodial parent is not always left without a remedy, however, simply because courts in that parent's jurisdiction refuse to recognize tort actions arising out of interference with his or her parental rights. This article discusses a different type of liability which may result from interference with the noncustodial parent's rights: loss of custody. The article will first discuss whether a party may generally obtain a change of custody based upon such interference. The article will then examine specific acts by a custodial parent which may cause a court to change custody, including denial of visitation rights, alienation of the child's affections away from the noncustodial parent, and removal of the child to a distant jurisdiction. The section on alienation of the child's affections includes a discussion of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) and recent cases that have dealt with PAS. The article concludes with a suggestion of possible provisions that practitioners may insert in custody decrees in order to prevent future problems between custodial and noncustodial parents.
Interference Amounting to a Substantial Change in Circumstances
Most courts and experts agree that except in unusual cases it is most important for a child to have a strong relationship with both parents. Thus, courts will typically conclude that an award of custody to the parent who is most likely to foster a relationship between the child and the other parent is in the child's best interests. For this reason, if a custodial parent has demonstrated in the past a pattern of interference with the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, unless other facts dictate a different holding, courts will frequently conclude that a substantial change in circumstances justifying a change of custody has occurred.
Not surprisingly, there is a long-standing tradition of awarding a change of custody where the custodial parent has interfered with the parental rights of the other parent. The Court of Appeals of Maryland clearly established this point in Berlin v. Berlin, 239 Md. 52, 210 A.2d 380 (1965). In Berlin, the parties entered into a written separation agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, incorporated into the court's order, custody of the children was awarded to the mother, and the father received reasonable visitation rights. In addition, the parties also agreed that the mother would notify the father if the mother moved out of the Washington metropolitan area. Subsequently, the mother began denying the father his right to visitation. For this reason, the father requested a change in custody. The trial court granted the father's request, and the mother appealed.
Specific Acts of Interference Which May Cause a Court to Change Custody
After a practitioner determines whether the relevant jurisdiction may award a change of custody based upon acts of interference with the noncustodial parent's rights, it must be determined which particular acts will justify such a change. The relevant authority indicates that three distinct fact patterns may justify a change. First, courts often award a change of custody if the custodial parent repeatedly interferes with the noncustodial parent's court- ordered visitation rights. Second, courts are inclined to award a change of custody if the custodial parent alienates the child's affections away from the noncustodial parent. Third, if the custodial parent removes the child to a distant jurisdiction without informing the noncustodial parent of the move, courts frequently order a change of custody. Each of these scenarios will be addressed in turn.
Frustration of Visitation Rights
The most common form of interference with parental rights which is remedied by courts occurs when custodial parents consistently refuse to turn children over to the noncustodial parents for court-ordered visitation. The fact that courts frequently order changes of custody in this circumstance is perfectly understandable, since court-ordered visitation is often the noncustodial parent's only connection to his or her children. If this visitation is frustrated, the child's best interests are clearly injured because the child will be completely deprived of a relationship with the noncustodial parent.
This article discusses an important issue in family law: the interference of one parent in the relationship between the child and the other parent, and how this may lead to a change in custody. The core of the argument is that a child’s relationship with both parents should be nurtured, and when one parent deliberately disrupts this relationship, it may constitute a substantial change in circumstances justifying a change in custody.
Key Themes:
-
Parental Interference and Tort Liability:
-
When one parent interferes with the other’s parental rights (e.g., visitation), this may lead to liability in tort in extreme cases. However, courts often hesitate to award damages in such cases, especially where interference with visitation rights is concerned.
-
Instead, the article shifts focus to the potential for a change of custody when interference is evident, particularly when one parent denies visitation or removes the child to another jurisdiction.
-
-
The Best Interests of the Child:
-
A fundamental principle in family law is that decisions should be made in the best interests of the child. In most cases, this means ensuring that the child has a strong, healthy relationship with both parents. If one parent’s actions threaten this relationship, courts will often intervene.
-
When a custodial parent interferes with the other parent’s rights (e.g., denying visitation, alienating affections), this may be deemed a substantial change in circumstances that justifies a change in custody.
-
-
Berlin v. Berlin (1965):
-
The Maryland case of Berlin v. Berlin is cited as a precedent where the court granted a change of custody to the father due to the mother’s interference with the father’s visitation rights. This case emphasizes the idea that repeated interference with court-ordered visitation can be a valid reason to change custody.
-
-
Specific Acts of Interference:
-
Denial of Visitation Rights: If a custodial parent consistently denies the noncustodial parent court-ordered visitation, courts may decide to change custody to the noncustodial parent.
-
Parental Alienation: Courts may also change custody if the custodial parent engages in alienating the child’s affections from the noncustodial parent. This is a more insidious form of interference where one parent manipulates the child’s emotions to diminish the child’s bond with the other parent.
-
Relocation Without Notice: If the custodial parent moves the child to another jurisdiction without notifying the noncustodial parent, courts may award custody to the noncustodial parent to ensure the child’s continued relationship with both parents.
-
-
Visitation Frustration:
-
The most common form of interference involves a custodial parent frustrating the noncustodial parent’s court-ordered visitation. Since visitation is often the only means by which a noncustodial parent maintains a relationship with their child, preventing this can severely harm the child’s well-being. Courts typically respond by modifying custody arrangements.
-
Potential Remedies and Preventative Measures:
The article suggests that legal practitioners include provisions in custody decrees to prevent these problems from arising. Provisions that clearly define the rights and obligations of both parents concerning visitation, relocation, and communication can help reduce conflict and ensure that both parents are involved in the child’s life.
Conclusion:
The central takeaway from this discussion is that interference by a custodial parent in the noncustodial parent’s rights can lead to significant legal consequences, including a change of custody. Courts, focusing on the best interests of the child, are often willing to intervene when one parent’s actions threaten to harm the child’s relationship with the other parent. This highlights the importance of fostering cooperation between parents for the well-being of the child and maintaining clear legal frameworks to address potential issues.
Do you need help exploring any particular aspect of this topic further, such as specific cases or additional legal strategies?
Interference with Parental Rights of Noncustodial Parent as Grounds for Modification of Child Custody
by Edward B. Borris
What 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 atYale 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?
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.
All were familiar with alienation and it's results. Everyone was not only gratified to see PAAO at the event, they all also acknowledged that PA is either a form of Domestic violence or on the continuum of Domestic Violence behaviors.
¿Que es la Custodia Compartida?
Un Estado-niñera, controlador, interventor y protector - 26-4 PADRES ARGENTINOS AUTOCONVOCADOS - 26-4 Padres de parana por la custodia compartida Año 2013 - 26-4 ASSOCIATION - ROBERTO TERRILE - CONVOCATORIA PARA EL 26 DE ABRIL 2013 A LOS TRIBUNALES DE FAMILIA - 26-4, 2013 Padres de la Guarda - 26-4 DERECHOS DE LA NIÑEZ Y ADOLESCENCIA, POLITICA DE ESTADO, YA! - Cibercampaña "vírica" de apoyo al 26-4 más enlaces al final de la entrada El 26 de Abril es el Día Internacional de la Igualdad Parental y la Corresponsabilidad Familiar. Por ello, el mejor... more »
What 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? 
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.
¿Que es la Custodia Compartida?
