In the next few blogs we at PsychLaw.net will share selected cases from the US where the target parent was the mother.
In re M.K.T., – Pennsylvania
This was a 1993 Parental Alienation by foster mother case. It began in the 1980s when Pennsylvania’s office of Children and Youth Services (CYS) and foster mother Myrna Hagan became involved with the family. It seems that father held an M.B.A. and worked as a computer consultant. Mother was employed as a secretary. In 1989, K., then age sixteen, ran away from home and refused to return when apprehended by the police. The girl alleged that she feared her father because he routinely used excessive physical discipline on her and her siblings. CYS personnel interviewed the children in their home. All three children expressed fear of their father and requested that they be removed from their home. There seemed to be no serious complaints about the mother. The children were placed in shelter care pending a hearing. Father admitted to a CYS caseworker that he had used physical discipline in the form of paddling and slapping across the face. Explaining quite clearly that the complaint of CYS and their “expert” were “shallow and picayune,” the appellate court chastised their lower court judge saying that a review of the record in this case compelled only one conclusion. The appellate panel insisted that the conclusion was so clear that they were puzzled how either the trial court or CYS could maintain a contrary position. Concerning the mother’s right to parent her children, the appellate panel apologized: “Unfortunately, the trial court lost sight of the goal.”
In this difficult case at least six behavioral scientists were involved over the “shallow and picayune” CYS process. One handpicked psychologist for CYS, Dr. Neil Rosenblum, and five neutral experts: Dr. Susan Nathan; Dr. Donald Hazlett; Dr. Kenneth Stanko; Dr. Robert Saul and Dr. Anna Marie Breaux. To perfect their shallow process, CYS had Rosenblum meet each of the children alone once and each child in an interactional session with foster mother Myrna Hagan. Rosenblum never met the parents but testified on behalf of CYS. Dr. Robert Saul also testified after meeting with the children and foster mother. Saul expressed that he had concerns about the foster mother’s strong views concerning the return of the children to their parents and feared what the foster mother might communicate to the children. Dr. Saul also stated that the foster mother’s views about the parents very possibly would have a detrimental effect on the goal of reunifying the family, and, given that the children had become attached to Hagan, they would be influenced by her even more. Clearly, between Hagan and the mother, Hagan was winning their hearts.
While Dr. Kenneth Stanko admitted that the father’s methods of discipline were detrimental to the children’s upbringing, he was consistent and emphatic in his belief that the parents had worked very hard at changing their behavior and ridding themselves of inappropriate ways of parenting. He stated that they read many books, both those given by him and those they obtained themselves. They underlined relevant portions and sought him out with questions. Dr. Stanko testified that the parents put this information to use in their parenting of a child who had moved back home without incident. Dr. Stanko emphasized that Hagan’s attitude was a serious problem to the stated goal of reunification. He testified that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, placement of the children with Hagan was not conducive to reunification of the family.
Dr. Anna Marie Breaux spent twenty-one and one-quarter hours in direct evaluation with the family. Dr. Breaux testified that the parents exhibited a great degree of motivation to get the family reunited. The crux of the problem, according to Breaux, was the children’s belief that they had to choose between their foster mother and their mother. Dr. Breaux stated that Hagan was competitive with the parents rather than being neutral to the relationship with their children. Dr. Breaux testified that the children were being done a disservice by continued placement with foster mother Hagan. Dr. Breaux opined that this foster mother had explicitly and implicitly taken actions leading to the children’s alienation from their parents.
The only evidence that supported the conclusion that visitation with the parents posed a threat to the children still held by CYS was the testimony of Dr. Rosenblum for CYS at the hearing, and it was not competent evidence according to the appellate panel reviewing the matter. The appellate court determined that the other expert testimony in the case was significant, both in quantity and quality. The record demonstrates that for over three years, every psychologist or psychiatrist who treated this family said the same thing: the parents acknowledged their wrongdoing, worked very hard to rectify it, and proved themselves in their care of the child who returned, but they were prevented from reunification with the other children due solely to the efforts of the foster mother and her influence over them. The appellate court chastised their trial judge and ruled that the order terminating visitation with the parents was reversed. They demanded their trial court hold an expedited hearing to determine whether the children may be returned forthwith to their parents’ home.