Parental Alienation
One of the hallmarks of my practice is the ability over the years to manage, and aggressively attack, Parental Alienation cases. In order for an attorneys to effectively manage a case involving HCPs (High Conflict Personalities), personality disorders, and PA ( Parental Alienation), the attorney should have years of experience dealing with these cases, along with years of experience interfacing with clinicians that not only understand PA, but that are also willing to bring that expertise to the case and create, along with my work, and effective strategy to deal with the alienated children (through both legal and clinical channels), to create reintegration plans for the targeted parent, and to devise court orders that set sanctions and appropriate boundaries on the alienating parent.
Dr. Bone is a reliable expert commentator of PA and the issues surrounding litigating these cases:
__________________________________
From J. Michael Bone, Ph.D.
__________________________________
As we have written elsewhere, Parental Alienation (PA) cases are different in that the surface appearance is very different than the underlying reality.
This “things are not as they seem” reality is however not always easy to reveal persuasively to the trier of fact. Many of the tools, strategies and tactics used in non-PA type cases are unhelpful or even may be counterproductive. These cases must be approached with this in mind.
When Parental Alienation is present, even in its earliest and most incipient forms, the strategies must be different.
In such cases mediation is rarely effective, since the real driving force behind the alienating parent’s goals are the removal of the other parent, which cannot be put on the negotiating table. Therefore when some settlement is reached on a given issue, another will “pop up” to take its place.
Whereas largely negotiated or collaborative strategies may be most useful in cases without PA, in these cases, litigation is almost always necessary. In these cases, it is also imperative to expose the inappropriate actions of the alienating parent. That parents’ false vilification’s of the other parent must be exposed.
Without this exposure of the alienating parent, the court is almost certain to get the remedy not only wrong, but opposite of what it should be. We have seen this many times.
Related to this, the alienating parent’s lack of credibility must be exposed via discovery and extensive cross examination. Without this, the court is again likely or almost certain to get it not only wrong, but backwards.
Additionally, in cases were PA is present, GAL’s are typically not only not effective, but actually run the risk of being counterproductive and part of the problem.
Finally, these cases typically require extensive discovery in order to accomplish the goals of exposing the missteps of the alienating parent as well as their often characterological lack of credibility.
In other words, Parental Alienation must be presented in ways that are not only different, but very nearly opposite strategically. Failure to do so is very likely to predict failure in litigation outcomes.
One of the hallmarks of my practice is the ability over the years to manage, and aggressively attack, Parental Alienation cases. In order for an attorneys to effectively manage a case involving HCPs (High Conflict Personalities), personality disorders, and PA ( Parental Alienation), the attorney should have years of experience dealing with these cases, along with years of experience interfacing with clinicians that not only understand PA, but that are also willing to bring that expertise to the case and create, along with my work, and effective strategy to deal with the alienated children (through both legal and clinical channels), to create reintegration plans for the targeted parent, and to devise court orders that set sanctions and appropriate boundaries on the alienating parent.
Dr. Bone is a reliable expert commentator of PA and the issues surrounding litigating these cases:
__________________________________
From J. Michael Bone, Ph.D.
__________________________________
As we have written elsewhere, Parental Alienation (PA) cases are different in that the surface appearance is very different than the underlying reality.
This “things are not as they seem” reality is however not always easy to reveal persuasively to the trier of fact. Many of the tools, strategies and tactics used in non-PA type cases are unhelpful or even may be counterproductive. These cases must be approached with this in mind.
When Parental Alienation is present, even in its earliest and most incipient forms, the strategies must be different.
In such cases mediation is rarely effective, since the real driving force behind the alienating parent’s goals are the removal of the other parent, which cannot be put on the negotiating table. Therefore when some settlement is reached on a given issue, another will “pop up” to take its place.
Whereas largely negotiated or collaborative strategies may be most useful in cases without PA, in these cases, litigation is almost always necessary. In these cases, it is also imperative to expose the inappropriate actions of the alienating parent. That parents’ false vilification’s of the other parent must be exposed.
Without this exposure of the alienating parent, the court is almost certain to get the remedy not only wrong, but opposite of what it should be. We have seen this many times.
Related to this, the alienating parent’s lack of credibility must be exposed via discovery and extensive cross examination. Without this, the court is again likely or almost certain to get it not only wrong, but backwards.
Additionally, in cases were PA is present, GAL’s are typically not only not effective, but actually run the risk of being counterproductive and part of the problem.
Finally, these cases typically require extensive discovery in order to accomplish the goals of exposing the missteps of the alienating parent as well as their often characterological lack of credibility.
In other words, Parental Alienation must be presented in ways that are not only different, but very nearly opposite strategically. Failure to do so is very likely to predict failure in litigation outcomes.
Comments
Post a Comment