The Parental Alienation Debate and Argument for Tort

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Parental alienation is a growing problem faced by the courts — a problem which deserves a better remedy than currently exists. Parental alienation (PA), insofar as this paper is concerned, is defined as the unreasonable or irrational rejection of a parent by a child primarily due to the “negative influence of the other parent.”¹

In a previous article, this author discussed the balancing interests of the fundamental constitutional protection of the right of a parent to raise a child as s/he sees fit, and the failure of Courts to protect the interests of an unreasonably rejected parent.²

To summarize, in those cases where the rejected parent has intentionally injured the child or the primary custodian of the child, then the rejection of the injuring parent by the child is rational and should be supported by the courts. However, in those cases where one parent is unreasonably rejected by a child and where the other parent has subtly or otherwise caused the rejection, then the court must do more to protect the relationship between the child and the wrongfully rejected parent — and to deter the alienating parent from engaging in the behavior which caused the rift between the child and the rejected parent.

Further, where the rejection has been so absolute as to destroy, perhaps for all time, the relationship between the rejected parent and the child, the court must allow the tortious recovery for the devastation caused by what is often calculated and blatant manipulation of the child’s affection.

1*Associate Professor of Law, Lincoln Memorial University, Duncan School of Law. The author teaches Family Law and Torts, has been practicing family law for seventeen years and is Board Certified as a Family Law Specialist by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. The author would like to thank Dr. Wayne Sneath of Davenport University for his constant encouragement, and Dean Gordon Russell and Professor Katherine Marsh for their invaluable assistance.

Richard A. Warshak, Bringing Sense to Parental Alienation: A Look at the Disputes and the Evidence, 37 Fam. L.Q. 273, 273, 280 (2003) (citing Richard A. Gardner, The Parental Alienation Syndrome (2d ed. 1998)). Warshak notes that there are:

three essential elements in this definition: (1) rejection or denigration of a parent that reaches the level of campaign (i.e., it is persistent and not merely an occasional episode); (2) the rejection is irrational (i.e., the alienation is not a reasonable response to the alienated parent’s behavior); and (3) it is a partial result of the non-alienated parent’s influence. If any element is absent, the term PAS is not applicable. Properly understood, a clinician using the term PAS does not automatically assume that the favored parent has influenced a child’s alienation from the other parent. Rather, the term PAS is used only when there is evidence for all three elements.

Id. at 280.

2 Bruce L. Beverly, A Remedy to Fit the Crime: A Call for the Unreasonable Rejection of a Parent by a Child as Tort, 15(1) J.L. & Fam. Stud. 153 (2013). 

Trends in the Efficacy of Parental Alienation Allegations

in Child Custody Cases and Their Implications for Tortious Action

Bruce L. Beverly*

FLORIDA!

STOP VIOLATING PARENT’S RIGHTS

STOP ALIENATING PARENTS FROM THEIR CHILDREN!

FLORIDA CASES OF DENIAL OF CONTACT OF “FIT” PARENTS SIMILAR TO THIS CAUSE’S CASE.: 

1. CAUSES.COM – FLORIDA! STOP VIOLATING PARENT’S RIGHTS/STOP ALIENATING PARENTS FROM THEIR CHILDREN!
   “This crime of parental alienation at the hands of our court system goes on every day…some raise their voices, others do not feel empowered to do so.  Help us put a stop to this!”
   Petition To Florida State Representatives, Florida Family Judicial System, Florida Bar Association, Fox News, NBC, ABC, Bay News 9, Tampabay News, Bradenton Herald, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Governor Rick Scott.
   Excerpt:  “Family courts routinely curtail the parenting rights of fit parents by choosing one custodial parent and one “visitor.” This must stop.
2. Dr. Mario Jimenez Jerez Florida Supreme Court Task Force Testimony

1. Dr. Mario Jimenez Jerez testimony before the Florida Supreme Court task Force regarding Parental Alienation, Family Court Corruption, Fees, children’s death and legal abuse. – Why Dad’s Matter’s YouTube Channel Published on Mar 10, 2015Why Dads Matter Glen Gibellina Testimony to FLSCT Task Force
   Excerpt:  “I am strongly persuaded that we are possibly dealing with a very sophisticated form of organized crime. The definition of racketeering states that “the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.”  I would like to believe that these actions have been perpetuated without the explicit knowledge of the Judges involved, but this would have to be determined by this committee, Florida’s Chief Justice, and possibly a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. In any case, I believe that the actions of these three Judges clearly amount to violations of public trust, neglect of duty, and ethics.”~ Mario Jiménez Jerez, M.D., B.S.E.E.
   Marioaj01@yahoo.com .  Please see www.SayNoToPAS.com

Florida Supreme Court Charged with Corruption

Florida Supreme Court Merit Retention — Special Interests and the Judicial Branch

Labarga elected Chief Justice of FL Supreme Court

 

Broward County Public School conspires with Judge Manno-Schurr to enable Parental Alienation, a severe form of child abuse.