Victim of the Scam

New Ruling Worth Citing: New York State Appellate Division Overturns “Parental Alienation Syndrome” Ruling

In Dr. Richard Gardner, Parental Alienation, Parental Alienation Disorder, Parental Alienation Disorders, Parental Alienation Syndrome on June 21, 2010 at 1:00 am

Human Rights: 1

Court Whores: 0

Here’s a case worth citing…

Matter of Schick v Schick

2010 NY Slip Op 03456

Decided on April 27, 2010

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL

ARIEL E. BELEN

SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Anthony R. Daniele, New York, N.Y. (Myrna Felder of counsel), for appellant.

The Wallack Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Robert M. Wallack of counsel), for respondent.

Barbara J. Caravello, Jamaica, N.Y., attorney for the child.

DECISION & ORDER

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, by permission, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Queens County (McGrady, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated August 14, 2009, as, after a hearing, upon, in effect, granting the father’s petition to enforce the visitation provisions of a judgment of divorce dated October 17, 2005, which incorporated, but did not merge, the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated May 5, 2005, in effect, awarded the father temporary custody of the subject child, denied her visitation with the subject child for a stated period of time, and directed the subject child and the father to participate in joint therapeutic counseling. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated September 3, 2009, so much of the order dated August 14, 2009, as awarded the father temporary custody of the subject child, denied the mother visitation with the subject child for a stated period of time, and directed the subject child and the father to participate in joint therapeutic counseling was stayed, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

ORDERED that the order dated August 14, 2009, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The record supports a finding that the divorced parties’ son is alienated from the father, the noncustodial parent, with, among other factors, both the mother and father contributing to the deterioration of that relationship. Although the father has made serious and good faith attempts at reconciliation over the past several years, the son—who is now 17½ years of age, and is scheduled to graduate high school in June 2010, to attend a program in Israel commencing in August 2010, and thereafter to begin college—has strongly voiced, to both the Family Court and his appointed attorney, his objections to being forced to visit with his father. Despite repeated attempts by the Family Court over several years to ameliorate the alienation, and some therapeutic intervention, the son remains alienated.

While “[t]he Family Court has broad discretion in fashioning a remedy in matters of custody and visitation, with the paramount concern being the best interests of the child” (Matter of Pignataro v Davis, 8 AD3d 487, 488-489; see Matter of Plaza v Plaza, 305 AD2d 607), here, the best interests of the child do not require that the existing custody arrangement be modified (see Charpentier v Rossman, 264 AD2d 393; see generally Matter of Bonthu v Bonthu, 67 AD3d 906; Matter of Frey v Ketcham, 57 AD3d 543). Under these circumstances, it was an improvident exercise of discretion, unsupported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, to change custody to the father at this time, force the son to interact with the father, sever his contact with his mother and siblings for a three-month period, and compel him to undergo intensive therapeutic counseling. In giving due consideration to the wishes, age, and maturity of the son, and upon a review of the proceedings before the Family Court, we conclude that the order of the Family Court must be reversed (see Charpentier v Rossman, 264 AD2d 393; see generally Matter of Bonthu v Bonthu, 67 AD3d 906; Matter of Sinnott-Turner v Kolba, 60 AD3d 774, 775).

The parties’ remaining contentions have either been rendered academic or are without merit.

FISHER, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

About these ads
  1. Respected California Senators and Assembly Members,

    We are victims of Sacramento based corrupt agent of the family law courts – BBS licensee Janelle Burrill LCS 16216, unlicensed psychologist and request your assistance. Most of us were victimized by her under the color and authority of the law in her role as court appointed therapist. As law abiding Californians we filed complaints with the Board of Behavioral Sciences in 2009. Apathy and Inaction by state licencing and credentialing agencies that manage court evaluators, mediators, therapists harms more California families while more roadblocks are put up.

    Here are some recent CNN ireports for your review.

    Pervasive fraud : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-448492
    Modern Day Slavery : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-456024
    Child Enslavement : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-459109
    No license Psychologist : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-454834
    DCA Incompetence : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-447867
    Quack Case Spotlight : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-450254
    Child Abuse Case Spotlight : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-455529
    Violation of BBS article 2 : http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-462794

    Our complaints have been under investigations for over 500 days ie about 18 months each while our children are enslaved, abused and drugged by this corrupt fraud Janelle Burrill LCS 16216. Is this acceptable when California DCA has 27million plan for CPEI (consumer protection initiative) – Intended for fraud abatement and enforcement? Pls look at these top open complaints

    BBS : 09-00739-BS filed Jan 30 2009 506 days, 1.39yr
    BBS : 09-00958-BS filed Feb 19 2009 486 days, 1.33yr
    BBS : 09-00973-BS filed May 28 2009 388 days, 1.06yr
    BBS : 09-01426-BS filed Nov 02 2009 230 days, 0.63yr
    BBS : 09-01427-BS filed Nov 02 2009 230 days, 0.63yr
    BOP : 1F-2010-205943 – Apr 06 2010 75 days
    BOP : 1F-2010-206255 – Apr 19 2010 62 days
    BOP : 1F-2010-205955 – May18 2010 33 days

    How long should we suffer? Years for the investigations?
    Is child enslavement & modern day slavery appropriate and acceptable?
    While you sit in the assembly and senate as our representatives are you oblivious to this pervasive corruption and fraud?

    Please look at these CNN ireports with evidence on corrupt fraud Janelle Burrill, investigate and wake up California Board of Behavioral Sciences. Our identities are avaliable with the California Dept of Consumer Affairs, Division of investigations for each of these complaints.

    We have been victimized by vindictive retribution since we filed the BBS complaint against Janelle Burrill and therefore presenting ourselves by group representation. Please help us.Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully,

    “Victims of Janelle Burrill Support Group”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: