“There is strong support in Ontario case law for the proposition that a change of custody may be the appropriate response to findings of pure alienation, even when the alienated child opposes the change and is of an age where, in general, his/her wishes would receive significant weight: see for example, Reeves v. Reeves, 2001 CarswellOnt 277 (Ont. S.C.J.); B.(S.G.) v. L.(S.J.), 2010 ONSC 3717 (Ont. S.C.J.); L.(A.G.) v. D.(K.B.) 2009, 93 O.R. (3d) 409 (Ont. S.C.J.). I also accept that parental alienation is a form of emotional abuse with potential long term negative repercussions for the child. A recognized Ontario authority on the subject of parental alienation has referred to some of Dr. Baker’s interesting longitudinal research to this effect in A.G.L. v. K.B.D. (2009), 2009 CanLII 943 (ON SC), 93 O.R. (3d) 409 (Ont. Sup. Ct.) at paras. 97 and 98:
97 Dr. Fidler testified that long-term research by Amy Baker on adults who were alienated from a parent as a child suffered depression in 70% of the individuals studied. Two thirds of the same population became divorced themselves — a quarter of that group more than once. The adults talked to researchers about interpersonal problems, dysfunctional managing of their lives and difficulties trusting other people. One third were reported to have substance abuse problems. Fifty percent of this group in this study became alienated from their own children.
98 Dr. Fidler also testified that the study in question found that the bulk of those involved had wished that “someone had called them on their strong wishes and statements not to see the other parent”, but that they could not do it themselves. They could not reverse their public stance against the alienated parent, but wished someone else would make the decision for them that they had to see that parent. This way, the child could “save face”.”