What Happens if One Parent Tries to Turn the Children Against the Other Parent?
The concept is known as parental alienation. It occurs when one parent tries to turn the children against the other parent. Courts are very aware that children become a battleground in the animosity caused by a divorce. One parent demonizes the other, and the court is left to determine which parent should have custody of the children.
In one case, Wade v. Hirshman, parental alienation played a central role. Taking a look at this case and how it played out can help us understand how the courts respond to parental alienation.
Background of the case
Wade v. Hirschman involved a hotly contested custody case. The mother appealed a trial court’s ruling that modified a previous dissolution decree. Namely, the original decree held that the parents would share custody with visitation rights working on a rotating basis. Neither parent was designated as the primary residential parent. The modification, however, granted primary residential custody of the couple’s minor son to the father.
Both parents sought to modify the custody order. The trial court determined that the rotating custody plan had failed because the mother refused to follow the plan and work with the court-appointed parenting coordinators, who described her behavior as “totally disruptive.” Due to the mother’s conduct, the court awarded primary residential custody to the father, finding that it was in the child’s best interests to cohabitate with Dad.
The mother appealed the court’s decision, arguing that the court needed to show that continuing the original custody arrangement would harm the child. The Fifth District Court of Appeal, however, upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that when a rotating custody plan is unworkable, a new custody determination will be based on the child’s best interests.
The significance of Wade v. Hirschman
This case was actually reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court to determine the appropriate test for modifying a rotating custody agreement. The court ruled that the “substantial change test” established in Cooper v. Gress (2003) should apply to all custody modifications. The test requires the petitioner to prove that a “significant and unforeseen change in circumstances” occurred, and forces the court to act in the child’s best interests. Wade v. Hirschman confirmed the use of this test in Florida custody modification cases, which promoted consistency and prioritized the child’s welfare.
The child’s best interests
When it comes to custody cases, the child’s best interests are the most important factor that the court considers. When one parent attempts to alienate the other from their children, it can be taken as a sign that the parent does not have the children’s best interests at heart. In Wade v. Hirschman, the court sided with the father, granting him residential custody of the children, after his wife attempted to alienate the children from their father.
Talk to a Clearwater, FL, Child Custody Attorney Today
Do you need to modify a child custody agreement in Florida? Then call the Clearwater family lawyers at Cairns Law, P.A., to learn more about how we can help.
Source:
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-supreme-court/1015584.html
