Plea to the Judiciary: How to Approach Cases of Parental Alienation
Virginia E. Griffin, ESQ, a California lawyer and licensed School Psychologist, practices law at the law firm she founded, GRIFFIN DONNELL and ASSOCIATES, APC. The firm’s practice consists primarily of complex family law matters involving contested child custody disputes, which include parental alienation and parent-child contact problems.
Ms. Griffin makes the following plea to the judiciary about how to approach cases of parental alienation in order to comply with the standard of the best interests of the child:
Because the court has the ultimate authority to order a remedy—preferably the sooner the better for the benefit of the child—Ms. Griffin respectfully urges judges to become thoroughly educated on parental alienation. One particularly compelling reason that justifies obtaining this education is that parental alienation has been made needlessly and unjustifiably controversial by some who wish to confuse the court and distract its attention from the specific matters in the case before it. But having obtained the requisite education on alienation, the esteemed and wise trial court Judicial Officer would immediately recognize that those who proffer these false claims about alienation lack scientific support for their opinions.
In addition to obtaining continuing education regarding parental alienation, our honorable Courts must continue to strive for familiarity with the ongoing legislative changes to the family codes throughout the country. In fact, these codes increasingly recognize not only the phenomenon of alienation, but also that it is a serious form of child psychological abuse. Second, Courts wisely recognize that alienation falls along a continuum of severity—and that severe and moderate alienation often results in the child developing serious long-term psychiatric, cognitive, interpersonal, and even medical maladies. Third, our discerning Judges understand alienation and the harm it does to children, because the Bench is usually the only authority through which highly conflicted custody cases—especially those involving alienation—can resolve custody disputes and impose effective remedies, solutions, and interventions.
When the Court stays informed regarding changing legislation and case law addressing the phenomenon of alienation—or whatever name is given to this family dynamic—the Court will more effectively recognize atypical presentations that do not fit squarely within the elements of the family code or established case law. The informed Bench will thus be able to make decisions more responsibly, intelligently, and correctly. Although the Judicial officer is not generally trained in mental health issues, our honorable Courts are responsible to flesh out mental health issues, deceptions, and outright fabrications that are used to mask alienation. While ideally the Court should be informed by the mental health practitioner who has examined the underlying issues of the parent-child contact problem in the case before it, the Judges themselves know to dig a little deeper too, because a full understanding of the family dynamics is essential in order to make findings that remedy the parent-child contact problem.
Our esteemed Courts should never shirk their grave and solemn responsibility to see clearly through the smoky haze, red herrings, and rabbit trails often presented—not always with malice—but which typically occur in alienation cases. Without adjudication on the merits, without sufficient time for the Court to analyze the facts presented therein, without a foundation of understanding regarding the complex issues occurring in parent-child contact problems, family courts could fail families—most particularly fail children. Our wise and honorable Judges must become learned on this subject in order to properly apply the facts of each case to the arguments made by counsel and rule correctly.
In California, for example, a September 2020 change to Family Code Section 6320 allows an emergency grant for a domestic violence protective order when coercive control is determined and a party’s peace is disturbed. Imagine how this code can be manipulated by nefarious litigants who are pursuing an alienation agenda! Further, a Domestic Violence Restraining Order in California sometimes triggers a Family Code Section 3044 rebuttable presumption that the restrained should lose legal and physical custody of the minor children. The educated judge sees through tactical efforts and determines the true issues underlying requests for sole legal and physical custody— noticing when a request for a DVRO is actually an attempt to hide underlying alienation in order for the alleging and alienating party to gain an advantage. Courts should beware of this gamesmanship and manipulation of the judicial system. Since attorneys have a duty of candor before the Court, counsel for the manipulator should also beware.
Our educated Judicial officers understand that child custody evaluators, forensic evaluators and reunification therapists must possess specialized expertise, education, and experience in order to properly diagnose and/or treat alienation. It must be noted that even some of the most experienced mental health practitioners lack these skills, so the wise Court must require that any intervention, as ordered by the Court, possess such requisite training and expertise.
Finally, Courts must thoroughly understand the dynamics occurring in alienation cases and its harmful effects on children because sometimes the only remedy comes directly from the Bench. Early intervention is critical. Effective interventions exist. Time is the enemy when comes to alienation cases. Childhood is not forever, and the short duration of childhood mandates this sense of urgency.
