Child Alienation – the BC Courts May Take Away Custody
Parental and child alienation is a big phenomenon facing family law litigation. More and more, the BC Courts are starting to recognize this heartbreaking problem which results in children being sometimes permanently damaged for life.
In parental alienation cases, it is extremely important to have the assistance of an experienced BC family lawyer to properly show through evidence why it would not be in the best interests of the child to spend more time with the alienating parent. Often, various psychologists and counsellors will have to be involved to assist the court and families reunite or finding ways to stop child alienation.
Child alienation starts with one parent communicating his/her hurt feelings with the child and asking the child to side with them or even take care of them by disliking and distancing from the other parent.
Table of Contents
Signs of Child Alienation
signs of child alienation include but are not limited to:
- Child talking like adults and mimic what their alienating parents say or think
- Child being disrespectful and stubborn with the alienated parent
- Child rejecting the alienated parent for no apparent reason
- Child becoming violent with the alienated parent
- Child voicing feelings of hatred towards the alienated parent
- Child taking care of the alienating parent
- The alienating parent removing the child from his/her residence
- The alienating parent accusing the other parent of child violence or even sexual molestation of the child
The BC Court’s Approach to Alienation
Until recently, the Court’s approach to alienation has been divided. Sometimes, despite finding alienation, the court continues to allow the child to be with the alienating parent because it would be difficult or too late to take the child away and place him/her with the alienated parent whom the child sometimes hates.
For this reason, it is very important to catch alienation at the very beginning and immediately apply to Court for sole custody to stop the pattern.
The Most Recent BC Court’s Case on Child Alienation
In the very recent BC Supreme Court case of J.C.W. v. J.K.R.W, the court states:
[77] As noted in the article by B. Fidler and N. Bala, “Children Resisting Post-Separation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums” (see Footnote 1], the literature consistently reports that alienated children are at risk for emotional distress and adjustment difficulties and at greater risk than children from litigating parents who are not alienated (p. 20). Alienation is a systemic and family problem, and while there may be strong disagreement between various professionals, and the parents as to the causes of the alienation, both parents must take responsibility for a solution (p. 25). The authors in commenting on counselling or programs similar to Overcoming Barriers, and likewise, FRRP, state (p. 27) that “… the goals of the therapy include not only reunification with the rejected parent, but also facilitating global healthy child adjustment and coping mechanisms. This includes correcting the child’s distorted and polarized view and replacing them with more realistic view of each parent, improving the child’s health relationships with both parents, addressing divorce-related stress, boundaries and age-appropriate autonomy and restoring adequate parenting, co-parenting and parent-child roles.”
[78] It is in the children’s best interests that they develop a healthy relationship with both parents. The fact that their relationship with their father is not healthy is reflected not by just the father’s evidence, but by what the mother’s counsel stated during the hearing of the application on March 5, 2014. She stated that the shared parenting schedule has been followed, but K. “is shutting down”, spending many days in bed, and refusing to go to school.
[79] The mother wants to follow up with Dr. Locke’s recommendation and have the children see a psychiatrist – rather than attend FRRP. Dr. Locke in his two June 28, 2013 reports – one in respect of each of the children – expressly stated that the consultation was solely for the purpose of determining whether there was a psychiatric disorder requiring some form of other intervention. He found no psychiatric disorder. Instead, he found both girls presenting with features of anxiety and depression. N.’s symptoms were not as severe as K’s, but “…appears to largely be in the context of the domestic struggle that is happening in the family.” K. similarly presented “…with symptoms of anxiety and depression in the context of a very acrimonious separation divorce/custody situation. Although parents have been separated since 2008 [K.] continues to have significant adjustment difficulties to this.” He recommended that both children would benefit from monitoring for anxiety, and evolving depression in the case of K., and suggested that a referral be made. However, it is clear that Dr. Locke suggested a referral to Vancouver Coastal Health only because of the significant expense of a private psychologist. The children are now seeing Terri Rypkema, a registered clinical counsellor.
[80] I am satisfied with the report and evidence of Dr. England, that strong measures need to be put in place, and the children reunited with their father in a healthy relationship, and that the children become emotionally healthy. That can only happen if the conflict between the parties resolves, and certain of their behaviours are modified. It is obvious that what I will refer to as traditional counselling has not worked. The children – and the family as a whole – continue to have significant problems which need to be addressed.
[81] I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the children that the parties and the children attend FRRP along the terms sought in the father’s notice of application.
[82] The mother has a number of concerns and I will address them as best I can. She is concerned that cutting the children off from her in such a drastic way will be extremely distressing for them. As Dr. England testified – they may be extremely distressed in the short term – but it is only a short-term effect and not a long-term effect. Research demonstrates that when there is cessation of contact with the aligned parent, the outcome for the children is greatly increased. The mother is concerned that it is going to be more difficult to mend the problems given the length of time since separation, and the fact that K. will soon be 14 years old. Dr. England testified that the turnaround time and success rate of the reunification programs is just a few days, and K. is not too old. Dr. England is also not concerned that the father will abuse any parental responsibilities if he is given interim sole custody, guardianship and primary residence.
[83] I am fully aware that the children may likely be distressed at having to attend FRRP – but the court is required to give consideration to a child’s best interests in the long term, and not the short term. In A.A. v. S.N.A., 2007 BCCA 363, the Court of Appeal states at paras. 27 and 28:
[27] We are of the view that in so concluding, the trial judge erred in law. We agree with counsel for the appellant that the trial judge wrongly focused on the likely difficulties of a change in custody – which the only evidence on the subject indicates will be short-term and not “devastating” – and failed to give paramountcy to M.’s long-term interests. Instead, damage that is long-term and almost certain was preferred over what may be a risk, but a risk that seems necessary if M is to have a chance to develop normally in her adolescent years. As Ms. Label argued, it was a contradiction in terms, and legal error, for the trial judge to state that M will be damaged by continuing in her mother’s custody, but to order that she remain in exactly that situation. The obligation of the Court to make the order it determines best represents the child’s interests cannot be ousted by the insistence of an intransigent parent who is “blind” to her child’s interests.
[28] While it is obvious that no court should gamble with a child’s long-term psychological and emotional well-being, the trial judge’s findings show that the status quo is so detrimental to M that a change must be made in this case. Although M has not been permitted to have a normal relationship with her father for two years, the expert opinion suggests she will succeed in adjusting, although the process will be difficult.
[84] I conclude that there the order sought for interim sole custody, guardianship, and primary residence in favour of the father should be made.
For Questions or suggestions, please contact us at 604-974-9529 or email victoria@ylaw.ca