An Oakland County judge has recently garnered a fair amount
of national
attention for sentencing
three children, ages 9, 10, and 14, to spend the summer in a juvenile
detention center for failing to follow the court’s order to establish a healthy
relationship with their father. The judge subsequently modified
the order, allowing the children to go to
summer camp instead.
The transcript
of the hearing indicated that the judge believed the mother influenced the
children to reject the father and discounted the report of the 14-year-old, who
stated on the record that he saw his father hit his mother.
There is some controversy about whether judges should intervene in cases of parental alienation (where a parent estranges a child from the other parent, damaging the child’s mental and emotional health). Parental alienation must be distinguished from Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a syndrome described by Richard A. Gardner in 1985, which is not generally recognized by medical or legal communities. Carol S. Bruch, in an article published in 2002, finds Gardner’s theory of PAS lacking in rigorous analysis. In particular, Bruch takes issue with Gardner’s proposed remedyfor PAS in severe cases: judicial intervention to remove the child from the alienating parent and transfer custody to the rejected parent. Gardner claims that if this is not done, the relationship with the rejected parent will be irreparably damaged. Bruch believes that such judicial intervention endangers children because it could result in the placement of children with an abuser, and research indicates that forcibly changing custody from the beloved parent to the maligned parent usually intensifies the problem.
In the Oakland County case, the
judge had
tried for monthsto bring about the children’s and the mother’s cooperation
in seeing the father. On the day of the hearing, apparently frustrated with the
lack of progress, the judge brought pressure to bear on the children to agree
to see their father voluntarily. The 9-year old girl was asked if she wanted to
live in jail, if she liked going to the bathroom in front of other people, and
if she had a soft and comfortable bed at home. She was also asked by the judge if
she knew what it would do to her mother to go home without her children. The 14-year-old
boy was told that he would possibly live at the center until he was 18 years
old.
Debra Chopp, clinical assistant professor and director of the Pediatric Clinic at the University of Michigan Law School, called into questionthe judge’s ruling. “The idea that children could be sent to prison, to detention for speaking up about abuse or for not having the relationship with a parent that a judge wants them to have is deeply disturbing.” She added, “I have never seen a judge put young children in detention when they are caught in the middle of litigation between parents.”
And there is this from Carol
Bruch’s article,
Children ought not to be asked to function
under circumstances that would challenge or overwhelm even the strongest adults.
[Other authorities
say that the children who evidence alienation may have already faced unbearable
pressures.] A child’s chance for healthy development requires that parents,
judges, and mental health professionals face the realities of the child’s
situation. . . . Overly ambitious efforts with only small chances of success
should be shunned in favour of reducing the child’s emotional burdens,
respecting the child’s fears, and enhancing the child’s emotional stability.
No doubt these situations are tough. And in a case like this one, where the conflict has been going on for five years, there will be no quick solution. Perhaps the judge in this case, in modifying the order, understands that the children should not suffer further for a situation created by the parents.