UNITED STATES CASES involving Parental Alienation
UNITED STATES 
MATTER OF BOND v. MacLEOD 2011 NY Slip Op 03153 509360.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department. Decided April 21, 2011.
Based upon the expressed preferences of 13-year-old and 11-year-old children, and the mother ceasing her contacts with the children in the face of their protests, the attorney for the children sought to end the mother's parenting time. The Appellate Court upheld as credible the Family Court's finding that the mother stopped the contacts out of frustration in response to the children's repeated refusals to see her. The attorney for the children cited other reasons for the children's rejection of their mother, including a one-time argument between the daughter and the maternal grandmother in which the mother chose not to intervene, the mother's failure to attend the children's extracurricular activities, and the children's dislike of the mother's boyfriend. The Appellate Court did not find these reasons compelling.

From the Appellate Court's decision: "Although the children's desires regarding visitation should be considered, Family Court appropriately noted that their wishes are not determinative (see Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 A.D.3d 774, 775 [2009]) and, in any event, the court indicated that it believed some degree of parental alienation by the father had occurred (see Matter of Bronson v Bronson, 63 A.D.3d 1205, 1207 [2009]). Based on the foregoing, we do not find that the termination of the mother's visitation would serve the children's best interests."
This case is another in a series suggesting that courts are beginning to understand the complex dynamics of parental alienation. As alienated parents know, children's refusal to follow the court-ordered parenting schedule can be a formidable obstacle to contact. While I recommend in my book, Divorce Poison, that rejected parents should not passively accept the lack of contact, in some situations this is the least detrimental option. Even when it is not advisable, it is important for courts to appreciate that acquiescing to the children's demands is a very common error made by rejected parents (and by some courts). Hanging in when children repeatedly refuse contact is tough. Moreover, the parent may be acting on advice from a therapist who hopes that a cooling off period will help heal the relationship.

The decisions by the Family Court and the Appellate Court suggest that the judges understand that the reasons offered by the children's attorney for ending the children's contact with their mother fail to justify such a tragic outcome. When compared to the gravity of ending a parent-child relationship, the reasons are trivial. In addition, the Appellate Court explicitly recognized that the father played a role in the children's estrangement from their mother - "some degree of parental alienation by the father had occurred" - thus undercutting the argument that the children's preferences were reasonable and a guide to their best interests. Both courts noted that children's expressed preferences are not determinative. For an analysis of the hazards of relying on children's stated wishes in custody disputes, see my peer-reviewed article, Payoffs and Pitfalls of Listening to Children, and my lecture on the DVD, Benefits and Hazards of Involving Children in Custody Decisions. 
More Legal Cases of Parental Alienation
In R v KC, Justice Sheppard adopted these words:

"The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a childhood disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent. When true parental abuse and/or neglect is present, the child’s animosity may be justified and so the parental alienation syndrome explanation for the child’s hostility is not applicable."
In BSP, Justice Acton adopted these words:

"Parental alienation occurs when one parent convinces the children that the other parent is not trustworthy, loveable or caring – in short, not a good parent.

"(S)uch manipulation of the children, with the resulting alienation, carries very high risks. It can seriously distort a child’s developing personality and subsequent life adjustment. The sooner it is identified and appropriate interventions are implemented, the better the child’s chances of avoiding its worst long-term effects."
In a 2007 Ontario case, CS v MS, Justuce Perkins recognized not only the devastating effect of parental alinetaion but also the complxities it presents to the court:

"Children who are subject to the parental alienation syndrome (I will call them PAS children) are very powerful in their views of the non-alienating parent. The views are almost exclusively negative, to the point that the parent is demonized and seen as evil....

"PAS children feel empowered and are rewarded for attacking the other parents and feel no remorse or shame for doing so.

"PAS children have a knee jerk, reflexive response to support the alienator against the targeted parent, often on the basis of minimal evidence or justification. PAS children broaden their attacks to encompass members of the other parent’s extended family.

"PAS children are recruited by the alienating parent and alienated siblings to the alienating parent’s cause.

"With PAS children, you cannot be sure who you are listening to – is it the child (or) is it the alienating parent?"
In PLC v CJP, Justice Graham adopted these words to define parental alienation:

"... a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child’s campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from a combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent’s indoctrinations and the child’s own contributions to the vilification of the target parent.

"PAS is more than brainwashing or programming, because the child has to actually participate in the denigrating of the alienated parent. This is done in primarily the following eight ways:

  • The child denigrates the alienated parent with foul language and severe oppositional behaviour;

  • The child offers weak, absurd, or frivolous reasons for his or her anger;

  • The child is sure of him or herself and doesn’t demonstrate ambivalence, i.e. love and hate for the alienated parent, only hate;

  • The child exhorts that he or she alone came up with the idea of denigration;

  • The child supports and feels a need to protect the alienating parent;

  • The child does not demonstrate guilt over cruelty towards the alienated parent;

  • The child uses borrowed scenarios, or vividly describes situations that he or she could not have experienced;

  • Animosity is spread to also include the friends and/or extended family of the alienated parent.”
REFERENCES: