Columnist Sandra Thompson: Alienation allegations cloud custody disputes

IT seemed only logical that, after the death of her second daughter, Sharon would have guardianship of her 10-year-old grandson. His father, who had grown children from previous relationships, had died earlier.

It was not an unfamiliar role for Sharon. Her other daughter had died several years before, leaving behind a son. Sharon had been his guardian for 14 years until he turned 18 and moved out on his own.

But her guardianship of the 10-year-old was taken away July 28. A Family Court judge ruled that the boy should live with his 36-year-old half-brother, whom we'll call Joe, in California.

The reason? Alienation.

Sharon contended the boy didn't want to visit Joe as was ordered by the court. Joe said Sharon fueled ill feelings between he and the boy so they couldn't establish a good relationship. Joe sought a change in guardianship, and the court ordered Sharon not to make disparaging comments about Joe to the boy or discuss the case with him.

When the boy refused to get on a plane to visit Joe in California (as ordered by the court), Sharon had someone videotape the airport scene so the judge would know the depths of the boy's feelings about visiting Joe.

"Oh that's alienation if I ever saw it," the judge said on learning about the videotape. "The videotape did nothing but exaggerate his emotions. I think Grandma is awful, coaching that boy to the nth degree. She reminds him of terrible stuff and I won't have it."

Sharon contends she did not coach the boy, nor did she berate Joe. She simply believes the boy is better off with her, not a half-brother who lives with his fiancee and their baby in a one-bedroom apartment.

The judge disagreed, and awarded guardianship to Joe. Sharon has visitation rights one weekend a month and 15-minute phone calls on Wednesday and Sunday nights.

Sharon's attorney said that when other accusations against her failed to prove true, Joe resorted to allegations of alienation to win guardianship.

It's an issue that often crops up in hotly contested custody disputes whether it's a guardianship case like Sharon's or a divorce. Sometimes a judge will forbid contact between a parent and child if he believes that parent is turning the child against the other parent.

But how do you prove or disprove alienation? How can you tell if a child is being coached or if he truly doesn't want to be with the other parent or guardian? That was Sharon's dilemma.

"It gets to be a spaghetti knot," Yvonne Hess, executive director of Bridge Counseling Associates and a licensed marriage and family therapist, says.

In most divorce and other custody disputes, the adults feel pain and anger, which spill over to the child. The child is placed in a peculiar position, Hess says, when he feels he must ally himself with one adult over the other.

"The child lives a dual life," she says.

In those cases, a child must be made to feel that he can be loyal to both adults and it won't diminish their love for him.

Parents should not criticize or berate the other in front of the child. "There shouldn't be any cosmic game going on with people getting points," Hess says.

Parents can work through their feelings if they focus on what's best for the child and not on their personal anger and hurt.

Of course, that's easier said than done when Mom's angry that Dad threw her aside for another woman or Dad's upset he's paying all his income for child support.

The extreme form of this behavior is what is clinically known as parental alienation, Hess says, where a parent or guardian repeatedly makes negative statements about the other, forcing the child to reject that adult. When the child is to visit that adult, he'll scream, throw tantrums and refuse to go.

The child exhibits rage. In the most severe cases, he may even threaten to kill the rejected adult.

Hess has worked on cases where a child had to be placed with a third party while the offending parent went through therapy to change the negative behavior.

She believes that adults in any custody dispute should build on the positives rather than dwell on the negatives of the relationship, and pass that on to the child.

In Sharon's case, the judge believed she dwelled more on the negatives and it cost her her grandson.

archive