PARENTAL ALIENATION—SCIENCE AND LAW
CONTRIBUTORS
PREFACE
DEFINITIONS
FIRST, PREPARING FOR FRYE, DAUBERT, AND MOHAN HEARINGS
SECOND, ADDRESSING MISINFORMATION
EDITORS AND AUTHORS
CONTENTS
PARENTAL ALIENATION—SCIENCE AND LAW
Section One CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND RESEARCH
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO PARENTAL ALIENATION
DEFINITION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
MANIFESTATIONS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION
CAUSES OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
CHARACTERISTICS OF ALIENATING PARENTS
METHODS FOR CAUSING PARENTAL ALIENATION
CRITERIA FOR THE DIAGNOSIS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF ALIENATION
TRANSGENERATIONAL PARENTAL ALIENATION
PARENTAL ALIENATION AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE
PARENTAL ALIENATION AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
PREVALENCE OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
PREVALENCE OF ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN CASES OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
LEVELS OF SEVERITY OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
OTHER CAUSES OF CONTACT REFUSAL
ROLES OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
ROLES OF LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONCEPT OF ALIENATION
PARENTAL ALIENATION AROUND THE WORLD
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
Misinformation: Parental Alienation Syndrome is Junk Science
In Response . . .
Misinformation: Parental Alienation Has Been Debunked
In Response . . .
NOTES
Chapter 2 THE PSYCHOSOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF CONTACT REFUSAL
PARENTAL ALIENATION VERSUS ESTRANGEMENT
EVALUATING FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION
DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF CONTACT REFUSAL
THE CONTEXT OF CONTACT REFUSAL
Normal Preferences
Loyalty Conflicts
Children’s Acts to Avoid Conflict
Worried or Depressed Children
Stubborn Children
Maltreated Children
Accidental Indoctrination
Purposeful Indoctrination
Shared Delusional Disorder
CONTACT REFUSAL RESULTING FROM A COMBINATION OF CAUSES
Separation Anxiety and Accidental Indoctrination Together
Estrangement and Alienation Together
Purposeful Indoctrination, Normal Preferences, and Cognitive Dissonance Together
OVERALL STRATEGY TO ASSESS CONTACT REFUSAL
1. Identify the chief complaint or the primary symptoms that prompted the child’s parents to seek professional consultation.
2. Develop a differential diagnosis for the chief complaint.
3. Collect enough general information to narrow down the full differential diagnosis to a short list of two or three possibilities
4. Collect additional detailed information to identify the specific cause of the child’s contact refusal.
5. Consider utilizing assessment instruments to better describe and clarify the relationships in question.
FIVE-FACTOR MODEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
EVALUATIONS INVOLVING SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DURING EVALUATION
TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTACT REFUSAL
The Child’s Normal Preference
Loyalty Conflict
Child Avoiding Conflict between the Parents
Worried or Depressed Child
Stubborn Child
Abused Child
Shared Delusional Disorder
Parental Alienation
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION EVALUATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
Chapter 3 PARENTAL ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
EMOTIONAL ABUSE
COERCION
THREATS AND INTIMIDATION
PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE
USING ISOLATION
MINIMIZING, DENYING, AND BLAMING
USING PRIVILEGE
USING ECONOMIC ABUSE
USING CHILDREN
GENDER DIFFERENCES
STANDARDS OF PRACTICE
ASSESSMENT OF PARENTAL ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
SEEKING OBJECTIVITY AND EVIDENCE-BASED CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSION
NOTES
TABLE REFERENCES
Chapter 4 PARENTAL ALIENATION: HOW TO PREVENT, MANAGE, AND REMEDY IT
DENIAL AND RECOGNITION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
LEVELS OF SEVERITY OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
IS PARENTAL ALIENATION A NORMAL CONSEQUENCE OF DIVORCE?
RATIONALE FOR INTERVENTIONS WITH ALIENATED CHILDREN
Psychosocial Problems
Psychological Problems Inherent in Irrational Rejection of a Loving Parent
Risks to Future Development
PREVENTING THE ENTRENCHMENT OF ALIENATION: DEALING WITH MILD AND SOME MODERATE CASES
Parent and Child Education Programs
Psychotherapy
Structured Counseling and Psychoeducational Programs
Detailed and Unambiguous Court Orders
Rapid and Effective Enforcement of Court Orders
WORKING WITH FAMILIES OF MODERATELY ALIENATED CHILDREN WHOSE FAVORED PARENT IS LIKELY TO MODIFY ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
DEALING WITH CASES OF MODERATELY TO SEVERELY ALIENATED CHILDREN WHOSE FAVORED PARENT IS UNLIKELY TO MODIFY ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
PLACING CHILDREN WITH THEIR FAVORED PARENT
PRETENSE OF COMPLYING WITH COURT ORDERS
PLACING CHILDREN WITH THEIR REJECTED PARENT
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF CHILDREN’S CONTACT WITH THEIR FAVORED PARENT
INFORMING CHILDREN OF THE COURT’S DECISION
WHEN COURT ORDERS AND PSYCHOTHERAPY ARE INSUFFICIENT TO MODIFY ALIENATED CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR
FAMILY BRIDGES: AN EDUCATIONAL ALTERNATIVE FOR ALIENATED PARENT–CHILD RELATIONSHIPS
Workshop Goals
Basic Principles
Outcome Studies
ETHICAL ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES RELATED TO COERCION OF CHILDREN
CRITICISMS OF FAMILY BRIDGES
PLACING CHILDREN APART FROM BOTH PARENTS
AWARDING CUSTODY TO THE FAVORED PARENT AND SUSPENDING SCHEDULED CONTACT WITH THE REJECTED PARENT
CONCERNS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH EVIDENCE IN SEVERE ALIENATION CASES
PRACTICE TIPS FOR LAWYERS AND JUDGES
Tips for Lawyers Representing Parents Who Are Alienated or at Risk for Becoming Alienated
Tips for Lawyers Representing Parents Who Are Alleged to be Alienating their Children from the Other Parent
Tips for Judges with a Case that Raises Parental Alienation Issues
MISINFORMATION AND MYTHS ABOUT PARENTAL ALIENATION
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
Chapter 5 PARENTAL ALIENATION AND EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL ALIENATION THEORY
FIVE-FACTOR MODEL
FACTOR ONE: CHILD RESISTS A RELATIONSHIP WITH A PARENT
FACTOR TWO: PRIOR POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH REJECTED PARENT
FACTOR THREE: LACK OF ABUSE BY REJECTED PARENT
FACTOR FOUR: THE PREFERRED PARENT AND ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
Children are Susceptible to Undue Influence
Development of the Baker Strategies Questionnaire
Reliability and Validity of the Baker Strategies Questionnaire
Summary of Studies on Alienating Behaviors
FACTOR FIVE: BEHAVIORS OF ALIENATED CHILDREN
Clinical Observations of the Behaviors of Alienated Children
Research Studies Validating the Eight Behaviors
CAUSING PARENTAL ALIENATION IS CHILD PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE
Long-Term Consequences of Child Psychological Abuse
LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
Misinformation: There is No Empirical Research Regarding Parental Alienation
In Reply . . .
Misinformation: There is Insufficient Research Regarding PA to Meet Daubert Criteria
In Reply . . .
NOTES
Chapter 6 RECOGNITION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION BY PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
PUBLICATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
American Bar Association
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
La Società Italiana di Neuropsichiatria dell’Infanzia e dell’Adolescenza
Asociación Española Multidisciplinar de Investigación Sobre Interferencias Parentales
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children
Asociatia Românˇa pentru Custodia Comunˇa
ENCYCLOPEDIAS AND MAJOR TEXTBOOKS
Psychiatry in Law/Law in Psychiatry
Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Mental Health
Salem Health Psychology and Mental Health
Cultural Sociology of Divorce: An Encyclopedia
The Handbook of Forensic Psychology
Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science
The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology
Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry
Principles and Practice of Forensic Psychiatry
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES
IMPORTANT DIAGNOSTIC MANUALS
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
International Classification of Diseases
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Qualitative Research Regarding Parental Alienation
Quantitative Research Regarding Parental Alienation
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
Misinformation: “Parental alienation has not been recognized by professional organizations”
In Reply . . .
Misinformation: “The editors of DSM-5 rejected parental alienation”
In Reply . . .
CONCLUSION
NOTES
Section Two LEGAL ISSUES
Chapter 7 ALIENATING BEHAVIORS AND THE LAW
ALIENATING BEHAVIORS AND CUSTODY CLAIMS IN THE LAW, 1804–1994
De Manneville, 1804—Father Deprives Mother of Custody
Shelley v. Westbrook, 1817—Grandparents Deprive Father of Custody
Earl of Westmeath v. Countess of Westmeath, 1826— No Help for an Alienated Mother
Ball v. Ball, 1827—An Alienated Father Reunited
In re Barry, 1844—A Father Loses His Daughter
In re Burrus, 1890—A Bereaved Father Loses His Daughter
Carter v. Carter, 1904—Mother Fights for Her Son and Loses a Fiancé
Charles Dickens, 1858—An Alienator Through and Through
Victor Hugo, 1860—Literary Alienation
Albert Einstein, 1915—An Alienated Father
Jeffrey Koons, 1994—No Matter How Rich and Powerful
ALIENATION CASES SPILL OVER INTO TORT LAW
PARENTAL ALIENATION LITIGATED IN TORT, 1985–2005
Lawsuits Entailing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Raftery v. Scott, Virginia, 1985
Bhama v. Bhama, Michigan, 1988
Lawsuits Concerning Interference with Custody/Visitation
Wolf v. Wolf, Iowa, 2005
Streeter v. Executive Jet Management, Connecticut, 2005
RELATED TORT RECOVERY FOR ALIENATING ANDANALOGOUS TYPE BEHAVIORS, 1945–2013
Lawsuits Concerning Loss of Maintenance and Support
Daily v. Parker, Illinois, 1945
Johnson v. Luhman, Illinois, 1947
Russick v. Hicks, Michigan, 1949
Miller v. Monsen, Minnesota, 1949
Lawsuits Concerning a Loss of Society and Companionship
Rosefield v. Rosefield, California, 1963
Hutelmyer v. Cox, North Carolina, 1999
Lawsuits Entailing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Sheltra v. Smith, Vermont, 1978
Pankratz v. Willis, Arizona, 1987
Lindgren v. Moore, Illinois, 1995
Lawsuits Concerning Custody or Visitation
Gibson v. Gibson, California, 1971
Lloyd v. Loeffler, Wisconsin, 1982
DiRuggiero v. Rodgers, New Jersey, 1984
Silcott v. Oglesby, Texas, 1986
Hershey v. Hershey, South Dakota, 1991
Stone v. Wall, Florida, 1999
Eberle v. Adams, Texas, 2001
Khalifa v. Shannon, Maryland, 2008
Wyatt v. McDermott, Virginia, 2012
Lawsuits Over Civil Rights Violations
Smith v. Eley, Utah, 1987
Tyner v. State Dept. of Soc. Health Serv. et al., Washington, 2000
Nelson v. Green, Virginia, 2013
Lawsuits for Defamation
Roe v. Franklin County, Ohio, 1996
CONCLUSION
ENDNOTES
Chapter 8 ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONSTRUCT —PARENTAL ALIENATION
LEGAL CRITERIA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
Admissibility of Relevant Evidence
Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Standards for the Admission of Expert Evidence
EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE CONSTRUCT—PARENTAL ALIENATION
EXPERT TESTIMONY ON THE CONSTRUCT—PARENTAL ALIENATION
The Empirical Science of Parental Alienation
North American Courts Have Found the Construct of Parental Alienation Useful, Reliable, and Admissible
Appellate Court Decisions That Address the Admissibility of Parental Alienation
Cases Where Parental Alienation Was Discussed and Admitted
Kilgore v. Boyd, Florida, 2001
In re Marriage of Bates, Illinois, 2004
Hendren v. Lee, Massachusetts, 2012
Mastrangelo, Connecticut, 2012
Koening, Texas, 2017
J.H. v. J.D., Delaware, 2017
Cases Where Parental Alienation or Parental Alienation Syndrome Was Not Admitted
People v. Loomis, New York, 1997
People v. Fortin, New York, 2000
People v. Sullivan, California, 2003
M.A. v. A.I., New Jersey, 2014
MISINFORMATION REGRADING PARENTAL ALIENATION
The Daisy-chain of Misinformation101
Frye-standard Detractors
Daubert-standard Detractors
Why Misinformation Persists: You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know
Psychologists and social workers, with little or no understanding of the law of evidence, hold forth on what is and is not admissible.
Legal professionals with no background in science pontificate about it.
Why the misinformation persists: You don’t know what you don’t want to know.
EXAMPLES OF MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
Misinformation from Hoult: “Parental alienation is simply when a child dislikes one or the other parent.” There is no difference between estrangement and parental alienation and parental alienation has no clear diagnostic criteria.137
Misinformation from Meier: Abuse allegationsshould always be assumed to be true.
Cases Involving False Allegations of Abuse
Doe v. Roe, Connecticut, 2012
L.S. v. C.T., South Dakota, 2009
Hoult on False Allegations
Meier on False Allegations
Misinformation: Children would notreport abuse allegations that are not true.
Misinformation: Gardner, the person who first described parental alienation as a medical diagnosis, was a horrible person and, therefore, his theories and publications are worthless.
Misinformation: “There has never been a precedent setting case establishing parental alienation.”221
Misinformation: There is insufficient peer-reviewed literature to support parental alienation.222
Misinformation: Alienating manipulation by one parent is not child abuse, and alienating parents have a right to disparage the other parent.223
In reply, severe parental alienation is child abuse.
In reply, the First Amendment does notcountenance alienating parents.
Misinformation: “Parenting is a privilege not a legal right . . . courts have no right to interfere,” and children have a right to choose with whom they live.241
CONCLUSION
NOTES
Chapter 9 PARENTAL ALIENATION IN U.S. COURTS, 1985 TO 2018
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH ON COURT DECISIONS
METHODOLGY OF RESEARCH PROJECT
RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
CASES ILLUSTRATING ALIENATING BEHAVIORS, BUT NOT FOUND BY THE INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA
In re Marriage of Cobb, Kansas, 1999
LS. v. CT., South Dakota, 2009
Doe v. Roe, Connecticut, 2012
K.M. v. S.M.M., New Jersey, 2011
CONCLUSIONS REGARDING RESEARCH
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
In Reply . . .
NOTES
Chapter 10 THE IMPORTANCE OF VOIR DIRE IN HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILY LAW CASES
STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING EXPERTS IN VOIR DIRE
Stage One—Background and Experience
Stage Two—Application to Facts of Case
Stage Three—Scientific Methodology
WHEN VOIR DIRE GOES WRONG
WHEN VOIR DIRE GOES RIGHT
VOIR DIRE CHALLENGES ARE NECESSARY
ETHICAL PRINCIPLES FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS
A THREE-STEP PROCESS TO VOIR DIRE A PROFFERED EXPERT IN PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING PARENTAL ALIENATION
1. Test the proffered expert’s knowledge of relevant literature.
2. Reveal the proffered expert’s inadequacies from prior court appearances.
3. Test the proffered expert’s knowledge of the facts of the present case.
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
TESTIMONY BY ROBERT GEFFNER, PH.D.
In re Adoption of Joshua S., California, 2005
O’Rourke v. O’Rourke, Tennessee, 2010
In re A.M., California, 2011
TESTIMONY BY JOYANNA SILBERG, PH.D.
Volodarsky v. Tarachanskaya, Maryland, 2006
L.S. v. C.T., South Dakota, 2009
K.M. v. S.M.M., New Jersey, 2011
Doe v. Roe, Connecticut, 2012
M. v. S., Maryland, 2018
TESTIMONY OF DRS. SILBERG AND GEFFNER TOGETHER
In re R.W.W., Montana, 2017
A STATEMENT OF FACT VOIR DIRE
TIPS TO IMPROVE VOIR DIRE AND PREVENT MISINFORMATION AND UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY IN COURT
NOTES
Chapter 11 PARENTAL ALIENATION: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The Common Law—“Adversarial”—System
The Civil Law—“Inquisitorial”—System
UNITED STATES
CANADA
BRAZIL
MEXICO
UNITED KINGDOM
FRANCE
GERMANY AND AUSTRIA
SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES
ITALY
SPAIN
THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
ISRAEL
INDIA
HONG KONG
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
Misinformation: Parental Alienation Does not Exist
CONCLUSION
Acknowledgments
NOTES
Chapter 12 TIPS FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY
STANDARDS FOR THE ADMISSION OF EXPERT TESTIMONY GENERALLY
STANDARDS FOR PROVIDING AN OPINION IN PSYCHOLOGY
INFORMATION THE EXPERT MUST PROVIDE BEFORE TESTIFYING
THE CYCLE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY
TESTIMONY DURING VOIR DIRE AND SIMILAR HEARINGS
Clarification of the Role of Expert
TESTIMONY DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION
Justify the Science
Cases in Which the Expert Previously Testified
Sample Questions Regarding the Expert’s Qualifications
Sample Questions Regarding Parental Alienation
Can you please define for the court parental alienation?
Can you please define for the court realistic estrangement?
Why is this distinction important?
How do you differentiate alienation from estrangement?
Can you please describe for the courts—briefly—what the Five-Factor Model is?
Can you explain what the first factor of the model is and why it is imporant?
Can you explain what the second factor of the model is and why it is imporant?
So, if my client had never been involved in her child’s life, that would rule out this being a case of alienation?
What are some ways that the judge can determine if the second factor is present in this case?
Can you explain what the third factor of the model is and why it is imporant?
Can you explain what the fourth factor of the model is and why it is imporant?
Can you describe each of the strategies that Baker’s peer-reviewed research found and then explain how they work to foster the child’s unjustified rejection of the other parent?
Can you describe for the court the research basis for this fourth factor? That is, how these behaviors were identified and how you know that they can foster a child’s unjustified rejection of the other parent?
Can you explain what the fifth factor of the model is and why it is imporant?
Can you review for the court the research basis for these eight behaviors?
Do you also consider whether the favored parent is supportive of the reunification process?
Let’s assume that alienation is present, can you explain why the court should intervene? Why not let nature take its course and let the children come around when they are ready?
So, are you saying that even if children state a preference—in fact, a very strong desire—to not have a relationship with one parent, the court should disregard that preference?
Have you concluded that dyadic therapy is not helpful in cases of alienation?
What is the solution for cases of severe parental alienation if routine outpatient treatment has failed?
Aren’t these “draconian” and “dramatic” solutions?
Is suspension of contact between favored parent and the child for a period of time determinative of a successful reunification?
Does a temporary separation from a favored parent have any negative effects on the child?
Have you identified elements of a court order that you believe will facilitate an alienated child’s having a relationship with the rejected parent?
TESTIMONY DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions Challenging Qualifications
Education
Licensure/Certification
Research
Experience
Publications
Questions Regarding Reliability and Methodolgy
Research Relied Upon
Foundation in Science
Clinical Judgment v. Empirical Testing
Subjective Basis of Testimony
Questions Related to Ethical Codes
Questions Pertaining to Parental Alienation
Final Comment on Cross-Examination
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION
Sample Questions on Re-Direct Examination
NOTES
Chapter 13 PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES RELATED TO PARENTAL ALIENATION
PREVENTION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
RECOGNITION OF PARENTAL ALIENATION
EDUCATION OF MENTAL HEALTH AND LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
CONCLUSION
NON-ADVERSARIAL RESOLUTION: ALL CASES BETWEEN PARENTS OF MINOR CHILDREN
QUALIFICATIONS FOR JUDICIALOFFICERS IN FAMILY COURTS
EXPERTS ARE OR MAY BECOME ADVERSARIAL
TRANSITION TO NONADVERSARIAL METHODS
NOTES
ON THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM: NINE URGENTLY NEEDED REFORMS
PROBLEMS IN FAMILY COURT
RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION FOR PARENTAL ALIENATION
CHILDREN EXPOSED TO PARENTAL CONFLICT
Alienated Children
Adults Who Were Alienated as Children
ECONOMIC COSTS
Mental Health
Education
Health and Social Services
Police, Prisons, Probation
Family Court: Judges, Secretariat, Lawyers, Legal Aid, and Social Services
Employment
CONCLUSION
NOTES
SHOULD PARENTAL ALIENATION BE A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES?
PARENTAL ALIENATION AS EMOTIONAL ABUSE
ROLE OF SHARED PARENTING
CONCLUSION
PARENTAL ALIENATION AS A FORM OF EMOTIONAL CHILD ABUSE: THE NEED FOR A CHILD PROTECTION RESPONSE
CHILD PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE
ROLE OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES
CONSIDER REMOVAL IN SEVERE CASES
NOTES
PARENTAL ALIENATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS, PSYCHIATRISTS, AND COUNSELORS
THE BETTER OPTIONS EXPERIENCE WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION
CONTINUING EDUCATION AND PARENTAL ALIENATION
PARENTAL ALIENATION AND MANDATED REPORTERS
PARENTAL ALIENATION TRAINING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
CONCLUSION
NOTES
EDUCATING LAWYERS REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION
PARENTAL ALIENATION VS. VOICE OF THE CHILD
ANALYSIS VS. INTUITION
NOTES
CORRECTING MISINFORMATION AT THE U.S. CONGRESS
THE THREE P’S OF PUBLIC POLICY CHANGE
People
Professionalism
Persistence
A PUBLIC POLICY CHANGE AT THE U.S. CONGRESS
COMPONENTS OF A PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVE
APPENDICES
Appendix A PARENTAL ALIENATION TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
PARENTAL ALIENATION GLOSSARY
MISINFORMATION REGARDING PARENTAL ALIENATION TERMINOLOGY
In Reply . . .
NOTES
Appendix B PARENTAL ALIENATION IN U.S. COURTS, 1985 TO 2018
ALABAMA
ALASKA1
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAI’I
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
Appendix C CASES ILLUSTRATIVE OF ALIENATING BEHAVIORS
DADS BEHAVING BADLY
In the Matter of the Marriage of Koenig, Texas, 2017
Brust v. Brust, Connecticut, 2015
In re K.P., Ohio, 2013
In re Marriage of Patterson, Montana, 2017
M.A. v. A.I., New Jersey, 2014
Rhodes v. Harrisonburg Rockingham Social Services Dist., Virginia, 2015
In re Marriage of Rosenfled, Iowa, 1994
Matthew P. v. Gail S., Alaska, 2015
Jennifer H. v. Paul F., New York, 2004
Saleh v. Parsadmehr, Washington, 2003
MOMS BEHAVING BADLY
Maddux v. Maddux, Indiana, 2015
Krodel v. Krodel, Indiana, 2012
In re Matthew M., Connecticut, 2013
M.S. v. R.D., California, 2015
McRoberts v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, 2012
Grindstaff v. Strickland, Arkansas, 2017
Amy H. v. Department of Child Safety, Arizona, 2017
In re Marriage of Miller, California, 2012
Fisher v. Justribo, Michigan, 2013
McNutt v. McNutt, Michigan, 2015
NOTES
Appendix D SAMPLE MOTION AND BRIEF FOR EXTENDED VOIR DIRE
MOTION TO CONDUCT EXTENDED VOIR DIRE OFPROPOSED EXPERT WITNESS
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONDUCT EXTENDED VOIR DIRE OF PROPOSED EXPERT WITNESS
NAME INDEX
SUBJECT INDEX
LIST OF CASES INDEX