“The case law in this area is now well-developed. Despite the lack of expert evidence on the presence or absence of alienation, the court can make a finding of alienation based solely on an analysis of the facts.
Nicholson J. in Malholtra v. Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472 set out the following:
[108] Experts have developed a list of factors to aid in identifying parental alienation. Cases have cited these factors. For example, when analyzing the issue of parental alienation in C.(W.), MacPherson J. qualified Dr. Fidler as an expert in alienation. Dr. Fidler set out indicators of alienation; these have been cited in numerous cases: L.(A.G.) v. D.(K.B.) (2009), 2009 CanLII 943 (ON SC), 93 O.R. (3d) 409 (Ont. S.C.), at para. 92 [L.(A.G.)]; G.(J.M.) v. G.(L.D.), 2016 ONSC 3042 (CanLII), at para. 134 [G.(J.M.)]; Maharaj, at para. 140.
[109] The following are indicators of alienation:
Child Behaviours:
-
-
-
-
- View of parents one-sided, all good or all bad; idealizes one parent and devalues the other
- Vicious vilification of target parent; campaign of hatred
- Trivial, false and irrational reasons to justify hatred
- Reactions and perceptions unjustified or disproportionate to parent’s behaviours
- Talks openly to anyone about rejected parent’s perceived shortcomings
- Extends hatred to extended family and pets (hatred by association)
- No guilt or ambivalence regarding malicious treatment, hatred, etc.
- A stronger, but not necessarily healthy, psychological bond with alienating parent than with rejected parent
- Anger at rejected parent for abandonment; blames him/her for divorce
- Speed is brittle, a litany; obsessed; has an artificial quality; affect does not match words; no conviction; unchildlike, uses adult language; has a rehearsed quality
- Stories are repetitive and lacking in detail and depth
- Mimics what siblings report rather than own experience
- Denial of hope for reconciliation; no acknowledgement of desire for reconciliation
- Expresses worry for preferred parent, desire to care for that parent; or, defensive denial that child is indeed worried about parent
-
-
-
|
Alienating Parent Behaviours: • Allows and insists that child makes decisions about contact • Rarely talks about the other parent; uninterested in child’s time with other parent after contact; gives a cold shoulder, silent treatment, or is moody after child’s return from visit. • No photos of target parent; removes reminders of the other parent • Refusal to hear positive comments about rejected parent; quick to discount good times as trivial and unimportant • No encouragement of calls to other parent between visits; rationalizes that child does not ask • Tells child fun things that were missed during visit with other parent • Indulges child with material possessions and privileges • Sets few limits or is rigid about routines, rules and expectations • Refuses to speak directly to parent; refuses to be in same room or close proximity; does not let target parent come to door to pick up child • No concern for missed visits with other parent • Makes statements and then denies what was said • Body language and non-verbal communication reveals lack of interest, disdain and disapproval • Engages in inquisition of child after visits • Rejected parent is discouraged or refused permission to attend school events and activities • Telephone messages, gifts and mail from other parent to child are destroyed, ignored or passed on to the child with disdain • Distorts any comments of child that might justify accusations • Does not believe that child has any need for relationship with other parent • When child calls and is quiet or non-communicative, parent wrongly assumes pressure from target parent, or that child is not comfortable with target parent; evidence of bad parenting; does not appreciate that child is uncomfortable talking to alienating parent about target parent • Portrays other parent as dangerous, may inconsistently act fearful of other parent in front of child • Exaggerates negative attributes of other parent, and omits anything positive • Delusional false statements repeated to child; distorts history and other parent’s participation in the child’s life; claims other parent has totally changed since separation • Projection of own thoughts, feelings and behaviours onto the other parent • Does not correct child’s rude, defiant and/or omnipotent behaviour directed towards the other parent, but would never permit child to do this with others • Convinced of harm, when there is no evidence • False or fabricated allegations of sexual, physical and/or emotional abuse • Denigrates and exaggerates flaws of rejected parent to child • Says other parent left “us”, divorced “us” and doesn’t love “us” • Over-involves child in adult matters and litigation • Child required to keep secrets and spy or report back on other parent • Child required to be messenger • Overt and covert threats to withdraw love and affection from child unless other parent is rejected • Extreme lack of courtesy to rejected parent • Relocation for minor reasons and with little concern for effects on child |
Also in Malhotra v. Henhoeffer, 2018 ONSC 6472, at para. 104, the court stated: “where parental alienation exists, it is manifestly important that steps be taken immediately. If they are not, the situation will only get worse. If the alienating parent continues to have unfettered access to the children, there is little doubt that the poisoning of the children’s minds will continue. At some point, the restoration of a relationship with the other parent becomes much more difficult, if not impossible.”
In Bors v. Beleuta, 2019 ONSC 7029, affirmed in Bors v. Bors, 2021 ONCA 513, Justice van Melle adopted a statement by the court-appointed assessor, Dr. Michael Stambrook, about the abusiveness of parental alienation:
“It is an abusive practice. It is child abuse when it occurs. It’s emotionally abusive. It cripples and stunts children’s development because the reality they knew at one point is undermined by this process. It is dangerous for the development because in [an] ideal situation, children should feel free to love and interact with the adults who are important in their lives, unencumbered by twisted turns of relational loyalties that are, unfortunately misplaced in this situation.”
In case of severe irrational alienation, the alienated child must be removed from the favoured parent for a time. S.G.B. v. S.J.L., 2010 ONSC 3717 (CanLII) at paragraph 65.
In making a parenting order or contact order with respect to a child, the court shall only take into account the best interests of the child. Children’s Law Reform Act, RSO 1990, c. C.12, s.24 (1).”