In a stunning ruling, of interest to all those concerned with parental alienation, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire overturned a lower court’s award of custody to a mother who was found to be alienating her children from their father.
After effectively interfering with the father-child relationship, the trial court awarded custody to the mother primarily because the children had spent the majority of their lives with her and that is where they feel most comfortable. This is typical in cases where one parent has effectively interfered in the children’s relationship with the other parent. The absence of contact establishes a status quo that the court then feels bound to honor in order to spare the children a drastic change in their lives.
The NH Supreme Court, in its March 31, 2011 opinion, recognized that the father was denied contact with his children for more than two years as a result of unfounded allegations of abuse, and that awarding custody to the mother because of the lack of father-child contacts, raises a concern that the mother is rewarded for violating court orders.
The court quoted the Vermont Supreme Court:
Although obviously well intended, the court’s decision effectively condoned a parent’s willful alienation of a child from the other parent. Its ruling sends the unacceptable message that others might, with impunity, engage in similar misconduct. Left undisturbed, the court’s decision would nullify the principle that the best interests of the child are furthered through a healthy and loving relationship with both parents.
This reasoning gives voice to the biggest complaint I hear from parents regarding their custody litigation: repeated violations of orders go unpunished, with some parents making a mockery of the court’s authority.
Experts agree. A leading authority on divorce wrote: “In my experience, a significant number of these parents have come to believe during prolonged litigation that noncompliance with court orders, whether for facilitating contact between the child and rejected parent or attending divorce education classes or therapy, brings no negative consequences.”
Noting the success reported in my study on the outcome of Family Bridges, an intervention for severely alienated children and teens, and the concern about the court prematurely restoring children’s contact with an alienating parent, this expert opined, “It was discouraging to read that some of the noncompliant parents in this sample had their contact with the child restored by judges—a powerful and destructive message to . . . children (and parent) about respecting law and authority.”
Perhaps this NH Supreme Court decision will reverse this practice. Read the entire decision.
The court cited favorably an opinion from a Vermont case:
Across the country, the great weight of authority holds that conduct by one parent that tends to alienate the child’s affections from the other is so inimical to the child’s welfare as to be grounds for a denial of custody to, or a change of custody from, the parent guilty of such conduct.
[A] child’s best interests are plainly furthered by nurturing the child’s relationship with both parents, and a sustained course of conduct by one parent designed to interfere in the child’s relationship with the other casts serious doubt upon the fitness of the offending party to be the custodial parent.
The court also quoted it’s opinion in a prior NH case:
The obstruction by a custodial parent of visitation between a child and the noncustodial parent may, if continuous, constitute behavior so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to raise a strong possibility that the child will be harmed.
For additional decisions by higher courts on parental alienation, click here.
6 Responses to NH Supreme Court on Parental Alienation