Matter of P., 1995 – Tennessee
In this case we at PsychLaw.net researched a child who was born out of wedlock during a time when the parties were living together. The father originally denied paternity but the child was ultimately legitimated, at the age of two, after results of blood tests. The conflicts and discord in the case were longstanding and, despite the efforts of many participants, showed very few, if any, signs of improvement.
In 1991, the mother was undergoing physical, emotional, and financial difficulties. In light of these problems, she agreed that the father could have custody of their son and a consent order was entered. Father’s refusal to enter counseling, his continued frustration of the mother’s visitation, and intimidation of the mother, CASA, and school personnel brought about a re-evaluation. Father then based his claim of better comparative fitness on the fact that mother was a lesbian and lived with her lesbian partner. The trial judge believed that underlying father’s behavior was his hostility at mother’s admission that she was a lesbian. The issue was not formally raised until just before the trial and there was never any allegation of inappropriate conduct or behavior by mother or her partner. On the contrary, the Center for Children in Crisis found mother’s partner to be the more mature of the adults in the boy’s life and the father of the mother’s two other children, testified that mother was a good mother, his children were well adjusted and that his relationship with his children was quite good.
The record revealed that the alienating father here was unable to see how his behavior affected his son. He refused to address the child’s difficulties in school, lack of peer friendships; he demonstrated an unwillingness to follow court orders regarding visitations, counseling and continued to make negative commentary regarding the mother in a manner that caused the child to choose sides. The reports of CASA and the guardian ad litem contained factual details of the father’s personality and behavioral disorder as diagnosed by Center for Children in Crisis. Father’s only affirmative response to these issues was an attempt to leave the jurisdiction of the court. The record demonstrated that the mother made considerable progress in improving her physical and mental condition and regained the ability to care for her son. The court ruled that there were changed circumstances that warranted a revision in custody arrangements and the appellate court affirmed a change to target parent mother.
- v. M., 2001 – Vermont
In this case, the Supreme Court of Vermont dealt with a cultural clash over parental alienation and religion. In this case, father and mother had two daughters together. At the time of their divorce in 1995, father and mother stipulated to joint parental rights and responsibilities for the girls. There was extensive cooperation on issues regarding the girls immediately following the divorce, including shared access to one another’s homes, the exchange and transport of the children’s belongings between the two homes, frequent and open communication between mother and father without limitation, joint parent-teacher meetings, and flexibility about time and contact with each parent. There was a significant change for the worse starting in the latter half of 1996. By June 1999, mother moved to modify the parties’ original divorce decree, seeking both sole legal and sole physical rights and responsibilities for the children. The mother told the court that the changes included father prohibiting the girls from contacting her while they were in his care, prohibiting her from entering his home, and refusing to communicate with her except in writing. Mother testified to symptoms of anxiety in both girls including nightmares, stomach aches, and a constricted throat; the younger girl being very clingy and sucking her thumb. The mother explained the changes as coincidental to the father’s deepening involvement with the Jehovah’s Witness religion.
The father argued that the portion of the court’s order providing that he not bring the girls to any Jehovah’s Witness religious gatherings or attempt to raise the girls as Jehovah’s Witnesses was unconstitutional. The record and legal argument on this point was extensive. The Vermont Supreme Court reasoned that their trial courts may take into account a parent’s religious practices when making a custodial determination if there is evidence that the practices have a direct and negative impact on a child’s physical or mental health. In this case, noted the court, the mother presented extensive evidence that the conflicting practices and rules in each household that stemmed from her and the father’s disparate religious beliefs were causing the children to experience extreme confusion and anxiety.
The trial court made specific findings regarding the negative effects on the children of mother’s and father’s differing sets of beliefs, including the children’s feelings of disloyalty, guilt, confusion, and anxiety. Thus, not only was evidence of harm presented, but the trial court made specific findings that the conflicting beliefs and practices in each household were having a palpable negative impact on the children, and would continue to do so. The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s prohibition. Additionally, there was extensive evidence in the record of father attempting to alienate the girls from mother that independently supported the court’s disposition in the case. Father refused to communicate with her in person on repeated occasions in front of the children. There was testimony about the father refusing to answer the door for her, refusing to roll down the car window while she attempted to talk to him at an exchange of the children, communicating to her through the stepmother while he stood by silently during exchanges, and hanging up the phone on her. For the reasons cited, custody was awarded to the target parent mother.