Skip to content

EXTREME MEASURES FOR EXTREME PARENTAL ALIENATION

by Daniel Gloade on March 24, 2014

There have been plenty of interim (temporary) court orders with regard to the custody and access of children.  The case of Kaverimanian v. Manickam, 2014 ONSC 1729, however, has the most extreme fact situation and remedy I have ever read.

The Father and Mother had two children.  There was a 10-year-old daughter and a five-year-old son.

Procedural Timeline:

  •  12, November, 2012:  The Mother took the children and went to live at a women’s shelter.
  •  November, 2012 the Father brought an Application in the Ontario Court of Justice and brought an emergency motion for the children’s return.  The Father had failed to prove that it was an emergency as defined by section 14(12) of the Family Law Rules.
  •  3, January, 2013 the Father brought a Superior Court Application and an urgent, without notice motion for return of the children to him.  He was successful and the children were returned to him on 4, January, 2014.
  • 8, January, 2013 the Mother brought an urgent, without notice motion for the children to return to her.  The judge did not grant the request because the Mother failed to address the accusations made against the Mother with regard to her medical condition.  The motion was adjourned.
  •  Mid -February 2013 there was an early Case Conference solely on the issue of child custody.
  •  1, March, 2013 the children were ordered to be returned to the Mother.
  • 10, May, 2013 the Father asked for an extension of time to appeal the motion regarding interim care of the children.  Father was granted supervised access.  Both parties agreed that they would both undergo a Parenting Capacity Assessment.
  •  6 June, 2013 Dr. Goldstein was selected to be the assessor Parenting Capacity Assessment on both parties.
  •  23, September, 2013: Access order altered
  •  January, 2014: Dr. Goldstein provides a Report
  •  4, February, 2014:  The Father was permitted access one day per week to be supervised by Dr. Goldstein.  There would be an oral hearing regarding the Parenting Capacity Report.  Dr. Goldstein could be cross-examined by lawyers for both parties.
  •  6, March, 2014: Date of Goldstein Hearing

The Report

Dr. Goldstein believed that the Mother was alienating the Daughter from the Father.  Also, the Daughter was helping the Mother alienate the son from the Father as well.

Dr. Goldstein’s testified that the Daughter’s continued contact with the Mother was harmful for the following reasons:

Insecure Attachment: 

Child is not confident leaving the parent, afraid that the parent will not return

Parentification:

Parent informs child of being vulnerable, and that child’s words and actions can help. Child feels more power and assumes more responsibility than is appropriate;

Share Delusion:  

Mother’s Delusions

  • The Mother made allegations against the Father of physical abuse.  The Daughter claimed that she witnessed this abuse.  The Daughter’s evidence was inconsistent with the Mother’s evidence.  The allegations were dismissed because the Father had air tight alibis.
  •  Both the Mother and the Daughter alleged that the Father fed them feces;
  •  Mother said that Father assaulted Daughter which left a “red mark”.  The mark was make-up applied by Mother;
  • Mother falsely accused visit supervisors of verbally assaulting her.

Both parties underwent psychological testing with Dr. Collins.  While both parents were able to function as parents, the Mother’s mental state had: “aspects bespeak a more regressed and primitive defensive structure, likely involving projection, splitting, denial and more manic defenses of idealisation and omnipotence. While there is little compelling evidence to suggest the presence of psychosis, she might be considered to have what some theorists describe as a “psychotic core.”

Mother was actively alienating the Daughter from the Father

  •  The Daughter alleged that she could remember her Father’s past abuse but she could not remember more recent events.  She could not remember one positive event with her Father or ever going to her Father for help
  • Daughter refused to eat food offered by Father
  • Daughter refused Christmas gifts offered by Father one week, then complained the next week that the Father did not provide gifts;

Court Order

Justice Van Melle ordered the following:

  1. The Father had interim sole custody
  2. The Mother would have no contact whatsoever;
  3. The Father shall have sole discretion to decide whether a friend, relative or former treatment provider will have any contact with the children;
  4. There will be at least three months before the court will consider whether the Mother should be allowed some telephone contact and supervised access
  5. Police enforcement of the order
  6. Dr. Goldstein and Justice Van Mele will be handling the matter from now on;
  7. The Mother must attend counselling by therapists selected by Dr. Goldstein;
  8. Both parents will do what is necessary for the children to fully participate in the
  9. “Families in Transition Programme”.

Interesting added facts and asides

  • Justice Van Mele took the extra-ordinary step of acting on an Assessor’s Report before going to trial.  She justified this decision based on the fact that Dr. Goldstein was cross-examined by lawyers for both sides and the extreme fact situation before her.
  • Dr. Goldstein was very concerned that the Mother had an uncanny ability to surround herself with experts sympathetic to her point of view.
  • As an aside, both parties accumulated at least $45 000.00 in legal costs up to August, 2013.

Comments are closed.

Translate »