Category Archives: legal articles

HMA breaking more homes than uniting

“The Hindu Marriages Act has broken more homes than uniting,” a vacation Bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and G S Singhvi observed.

The apex court regretted that the growing number of divorce cases in the country was having a disastrous effect on children of families which get broken in such a manner.

“Ego should get dissolved for the sake of the child,” the Bench remarked even as the separated parents tried to air their views.


Why is it hard to get Shared Parenting Bills passed?

In 2004, a public policy question was put to Massachusetts voters regarding shared parenting. Shared parenting is a rebuttable presumption that parents should have joint physical and legal custody of children, which may be rebutted by evidence that one parent is unfit (i.e., he or she is drug dependent, violent, absent, abusive, neglectful, etc.) or that it is not workable through no fault of one of the parents.

The public policy question was put on about 25 percent of all districts and garnered 87 percent public support. Because the number of districts was so high, its accuracy as a barometer of public sentiment is beyond all reasonable dispute.

However, two legislative cycles after the landmark 2004 public policy question, shared parenting did not become the law in Massachusetts. Gov. Deval Patrick has publically indicated his support for shared parenting, yet that has not prevented shared parenting legislation from twice dying. Given such overwhelming support by the Massachusetts voting public and the psychological community, why hasn’t shared parenting been passed into law?

feminist extremists and greedy trial lawyers is the ANSWER



Two judges of the AP high court denied a mom visitation rights because her daughter said that she did not want to see her mom’s face when she visited

let us not rejoice just because the dad was the winner here. The sad part is that the judiciary has once again asked a child to choose between her parents and not paid any heed to potential parental alienation

The right to a parent child relationship is a fundamental right that cannot be treated loosely. Hopefully newly formed NGO’s like CRISP will show the judiciary the correct path when it comes to making custody decisions


Judge rules that father brainwashed son


A 13-year-old Ontario boy whose domineering father systematically brainwashed him into hating his mother can be flown against his will to a U.S. facility that deprograms children who suffer from parental alienation, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.

Mr. Justice James Turnbull ordered the boy – identified only as LS – into the custody of his mother. He said that the boy urgently needs professional intervention to reverse the father’s attempt to poison his mind toward his mother and, in all probability, to women in general.


No Win Situation

If a man has an affair with a married woman and produces a child and proves it by DNA, is he the father? Apparently NO as decided recently by the Kentucky Supreme Court.

If the father gives up and does not pursue a relationship with his son, his son will only know of him as his villain dad who knocked up his mom and then ran out. If he does pursue his case–as he has–he’s vilified as the intruder wrecking a loving family’s peaceful life. So, where does he go from here???

read the story here

The same court is expected to rule in favor of a father in another case. This dad was married to a woman and they had a son who they raised. Upon divorce it was revealed to the father that he was not the biological father but he wanted custody and wanted to be dad and was granted the same by a lower court.

read that story here

Torn by Distance, He wonders how far to take custody fight

Parents whose children are abducted internationally face very tough choices. Read the story of a father here who decided to give up the fight for the custody of his daughter because he felt that he should stay focused on what little he could control in his relationship with his daughter and his nightly phone calls to her and his quest for visitation rights abroad.

After reading this i think a lot depends on the woman involved. Unfortunately most shreemati 498A’s who abduct children are vengeant @#$%^& who are not rational and are out to sever all contact of the children with their fathers

This story is another example of a case where a US court ruled that the appropriate jurisdiction of the child custody dispute was in the country where the child had lived for more than 6 months. Apparently this was due to some international pact. Why can Indian courts not act in a similar way??


FIGHT the 3 judicial biases against Moms, Dads and Kids

MYTH 1: amid the instability of divorce, children are best stabilized by staying in the home they are accustomed to with the parent who has been the primary parent.

Reality: One parent stability is psychologically destabilizing

MYTH 2: Even if judges believe children do best with both parents, but if they must live with one, mom is given the edge.

Reality: Children brought up by dad are more likely to do better psychologically, physically, academically and socially than those brought up by mom.

 MYTH 3: “If-the-couple-is-in-conflict-joint-custody-will-not-work”

 Reality: The more the conflict, though, the more important it is for the child to see both parents about equally, because conflict leaves the child vulnerable to feeling that the parent it does not see has abandoned it– does not love her or him. The less the child sees a parent the easier it is form a negative and caricatured stereotype of the unseen parent that leads to the child feeling negative about that half of her or himself.


Parental Alienation Syndrome: How to Detect It and What to Do About It

Parental Alienation Syndrome: How to Detect It and What to Do About It

by J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh

FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL, VOL. 73, No. 3, MARCH 1999, p 44-48

Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 “high conflict” divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses. Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly. Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.

For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of
familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3)
There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or
in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow.
Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific
criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS. In most instances, these
criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be
revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the
concept of “attempted” PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but
the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon
is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not
be viewed as neutral by the court.

Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a
direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.

The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from
the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can
be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their
examination in court.

Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking

Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child
and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many
different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued
that the absent parent’s parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child
is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of
allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in
more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a
reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and
common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing
the absent parent is “unsettling” to the child, and that they need time “to
adjust.” The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key
family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at
times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the
child’s relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of
this is that the visitation is “inconvenient,” thereby relegating it to the
status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the
relationship between the child and the absent or “target” parent. One phenomenon
often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a
reason to cancel visitation entirely.

The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the
other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child’s life. The
alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a
gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods
of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one
parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this
message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect
elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is
that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship
with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of
blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been,
unmistakably identified.

Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations

The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse
against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false
accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of
false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when
the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution
issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more
vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the
record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the
interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.

Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that
investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has
been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other
forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It
is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no
physical sign and has no third party witnesses.

A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be
termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled,
one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment
that is being framed as “abusive” by the absent parent. For example, one parent
may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this
scheduling might be termed as being “abusive” or “detrimental” to the child. Or
one parent might introduce a new “significant other” to the child before the
other parent believes that they should and this might also be called “abusive”
to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with
which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a
difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature.
These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a
theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental
terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways
that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this
phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of
which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates
carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.

Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such
conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the
PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the
parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful.
and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the
parent’s responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship
with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or
she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive.
Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the
doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side
of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse
the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this
criteria for PAS is met.

Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation

The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the
least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It
has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor
children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital
separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized
decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important
indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its
relative “success.” By way of example, if a father had a good and involved
relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one
since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that
something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a
positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and
other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in
their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have
been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant
from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent.
Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of
their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this
area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some
success in the past.

Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental
relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled
or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary
of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth!
An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the
nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a
distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is
often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these
cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted
and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.

If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite
devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component,
the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking
that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true
parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an
exacting challenge to correct its perception.

In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts.
First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware
of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health
professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about
custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than
good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation
relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very
easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of
it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that
parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If
that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of
the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the
undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of
access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support
it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental
health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit
unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is
suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health
professional’s investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause
irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.

Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children

The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more
psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the
part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially
alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply
put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, “My way or the highway.” If the
children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of
the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for
an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that
they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees
that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of
constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the
alienating parent’s “agent” and is continually being put through various
loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus
forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to
a child’s emotional well being.

In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS
process operates in a “fear based” environment. It is the installation of fear
by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this
pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most
basic emotion inherent in human nature–the fear of abandonment. Children under
these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When
the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there
is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an
acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized
observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent
reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly
changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not
previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once
suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which
otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.

The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding
the sudden change in their child’s feelings about the visit. In fact, the
alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This
scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it
encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the
alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever
the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in
the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent’s wishes by refusing
to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the
door for that child’s being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives
the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply
not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to
protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)

As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children
often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In
the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer
manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to
survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional
environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One
must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced
to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the
residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why
children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they
begin to internalize the alienating parent’s perceptions of the absent parent
and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and
dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent
and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to
the “fear-based” core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the
child’s protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert
is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the
child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the “no visitation”


All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly
contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does
not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the
possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation
process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is
succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target
parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the
success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent.
When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent,
the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable
that predicts success is the child’s age. Younger children generally are more
vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of
involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more
involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to
successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the
target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly
increasing the chances of successful alienation.

The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children
are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as
nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding
“No!” It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a
psychological evaluation or a GAL’s report that identified PAS but then notes
that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the
other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the
prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and
loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental

It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or
not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will
contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to
unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.

1 PAS syndrome applies and relates equally to the nonresidential, as well as the
residential parent. D.C. Rand, The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome. 15
Am. J. Forensic Psychol. No. 3 (1997).

2 S.S. Clawar and B.V. Rivlin, Children Held Hostage: Dealing with Programmed
and Brainwashed Children, A.B.A. (1991).

3 M. Walsh and J.M. Bone. Parental Alienation Syndrome: An Age-Old Custody
Problem, 71 Fla. B.J. 93 (June 1997).

4 N. Theonnee and P.G. Tjaden, The Extent, Nature and Validity of Sexual Abuse
Allegations in Custody Visitation Disputes, 12 Child Abuse and Neglect 151-63

5 National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, D.C.: Department of
Health and Human Services, 2998, Contract 105-85-1702.

6 The appointment of a guardian ad litem, the appointment of an expert to
conduct a psychological evaluation of the child and the parents, the employment
of make-up or substitute access and contact, or an enlargement of same to the
nonresidential parent, and as previously suggested by the authors in their last
article, a consideration for entry of a multidirectional order. Walsh and Bone,
supra note .3

J. Michael Bone, Ph.D., is a sole practice psychotherapist and certified family
law mediator in Maitland. He concentrates in divorce and post-divorce issues
involving minor children, and has a special interest in PAS. He has served as on
expert witness on these and related topics and has been appointed by the court
to make recommendations involving PAS and families.

Michael R. Walsh is a sole practitioner in Orlando. He is a board certified
marital and family law lawyer, certified mediator and arbitrator, and a fellow
of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. For more than 20 years, he has
been a frequent lecturer and author for The Florida Bar.

This column is submitted on behalf of the Family Law Section, Jane L. Estreicher,
chair, and Sharon O. Taylor, editor.

The Need for an International Family Court

We need an alternative source [when dealing with countries who are non-signatories to the Hague Child Abduction Convention]. I’m not a diplomat or law-enforcement officer. I am just a mom. But I had to learn how to talk to foreign authorities. It becomes an obsession. You want to know your child is safe . . ..

– Maureen Dabbagh, mother of Nadia Dabbagh, abducted at the age of 3 to Syria, and later to Saudi Arabia, by her father, Hisham Dabbagh