An unpublished
Michigan Court of Appeals opinion issued January 23, 2018, reviewed a custody
award involving parental alienation and deviations from child support (Brian Harner v Kayla Harner, Court of
Appeals Case No. 338746). The case hails
from my old stomping grounds of Jackson County.
The
divorce trial, which lasted for four days over a span of seven months, involved
three minor children, all of whom had a certain aspect of Autism. While the parties had agreed on joint custody
during the divorce, it was the main argument at trial. Practically from the word “go,” mom started
interfering with dad’s parenting time – repeatedly calling the children when
they were with their dad, sending police to conduct numerous welfare checks,
and accusing dad of neglect and abuse. She
also sought a personal protection order.
As the Court of Appeals put it, “[t]he claims escalated over time to include
allegations of sexual abuse, which became more disturbing with each
retelling.”
A
plethora of Child Protective Services (CPS) cases were opened and closed as
unsubstantiated, and three criminal investigations were conducted. The only CPS exception was that dad had
threatened mom with the children present.
As is common with CPS involvement, dad had been unable to exercise his
parenting time, which further distanced the children from him and damaged their
relationship.
Police,
CPS, and two psychologists testified at the trial that the abuse allegations
were seriously doubted, and instead pointed toward coaching of the children by
their mother. Mom had told one
psychologist that she did not believe CPS and the police had done their
jobs.
The trial
court held that for over one year, the mother “had engaged in acts that caused
the unsubstantiated abuse claims against [dad] and resulted in the disruption
of his parenting time.” (Citation from Court of Appeals opinion) As such, the trial court granted sole
physical and sole legal custody of the children to the father. However, it recognized that due to the
parental alienation that had occurred, reunification therapy was necessary.
The
Court of Appeals strongly sided with the trial court in its custody award to
father, stating:
There was evidence of numerous, ever-growing,
increasingly-egregious, and highly-suspect claims of abuse by the children that
were unsubstantiated and called into question by several witnesses, giving rise
to a reasonable conclusion that no abuse occurred, along with a reasonable
inference that the claims were attributable to conduct, coaching, and
communications by [mother], which can be properly characterized as acts
fostering parental alienation. The
implications drawn from the evidence are matters of common understanding.
In
ordering child support, the trial court took note that dad had been paying
$650.00 per month in support during the divorce, and ordered him to pay monthly
for the reunification therapy up to the same amount of $650.00. As this type of payment would be considered a
deviation from the Michigan Child Support Formula, an examination of why the
deviation from the formula recommended amount was necessary. The Court of Appeals did find that due to the
lack of an explanation relative to the deviation, the trial court had erred and
remanded the case for this issue only.
In my
opinion, this unpublished case provides two exceptional examples. First, it serves as an excellent reminder to
attorney referees and judges alike that when deviating from the child support
formula, you need to specifically state and cite the reasons for the
deviation. Second, it sets forth
specific examples of behavior by a parent that justify classifying that
behavior as parental alienation. Most
importantly, the trial court’s ruling, and the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of
that ruling, sets the example that this type of behavior cannot be tolerated,
and will have consequences.
As it
stands, the children reside with the mother while undergoing reunification
therapy to work toward a permanent placement with their dad. Helping this fractured family heal will
hopefully be a lifelong goal that both parents will strive for.
No comments:
Post a Comment