Martha A. Dean v. Carlos M. Valinho (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This postjudgment matter has come before the court on two motions to modify custody, one filed by each parent.   The plaintiff, Martha Dean, and the defendant, Carlos Valinho, are the parents of a minor son (referred to in this decision as “E”) born to them as unmarried parents [text redacted].   He is now thirteen years old.

The plaintiff's motion was captioned, “Motion for Modification of Custody and Access Schedule, Post Judgment” and was filed on November 24, 2010.   The defendant's motion was captioned, “Motion for Modification of Custody and Access Schedule, Post–Judgment” and was filed on June 17, 2010.   As a result of a hearing on a motion to seal certain proceedings in this matter, the court has ordered that court filings describing the condition, treatment or certain events involving the minor child's health and own actions shall be sealed, inasmuch as his privacy interest outweighs the public interest.   Accordingly, the sealed portions of this decision are removed from the decision in the public file.   Inevitably, this results in a decision that will appear choppy to the public.   The original un-redacted decision is filed under seal.

A court ordered forensic psychological child custody evaluation was performed by Linda S. Smith, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist.   At the hearing on these motions, the following witnesses testified:  the parties, Smith, Stephen Humphrey, a clinical psychologist (consultant to the defendant), Vivian Valinho (the defendant's present wife), Stanley Sadlak, Carolyn Bacon–Fortier, Malcom McGough (the plaintiff's present husband), Scott Sytulek (DCF), Rosa Jacinto, Jeffrey Mickelson, the court appointed guardian ad litem for the parties' minor child, James Black, a child and adolescent psychiatrist (consultant to the plaintiff), Peter G. Jaffe, a Canadian psychologist retained by the plaintiff to critique and comment on the work of Smith in her evaluation, Mauricio Gabriel Lofvall, Jason Stammen, Phyllis Kagan, Julie Gutowski, Anna Schindler, and Tracy Olson.   The parties also entered various exhibits in this matter.   Among the exhibits are transcripts of proceedings before this court from October 1, 2010 which the parties stipulated would be treated as evidence in this proceeding.

Other exhibits included the original report of a prior evaluator, Anne Phillips, a forensic clinical psychologist (now deceased), the deposition transcript of yet another evaluator, Sidney Horowitz, also a forensic clinical psychologist, and documentary comment, and an earlier deposition of a psychologist consultant to the plaintiff, David Mantell.   Finally, an evaluation report by The Wheeler Clinic was also placed in evidence.   The balance of the exhibits are comprised of various kinds of documentary evidence offered by both parties.

The plaintiff filed a request to present additional evidence which was heard on July 6, 2011.   As a result thereof, additional evidence grading summer, 2011 was taken and considered.   The request to take additional evidence regarding school issues was denied.

The court has carefully considered the statutory criteria found in Conn. Gen.Stat. § 46b–56 and the relevant case law.   Based on the credible evidence, the court finds the following facts.

I.

The defendant, Carlos Valinho, is in good health.   He has an MBA from Yale School of Organization and Management.   He is a successful businessman who owns many rental units.   He is presently married, having married his wife in May 2007.   He has two children of that relationship, both born before the marriage.   The oldest, G,¹ is eight years old.   The youngest, T is five years old.   They live in Avon, Connecticut.

The defendant and his wife are fluent in Portugese.   Both children of their relationship have been brought up to speak Portugese and English.   A male high school exchange student lived in the home for the 2010–2011 academic year.   His principal language is Portugese.   He speaks English as a second language.

The defendant Martha Dean is in good health.   She has a J.D. from the University of Connecticut.   She is an attorney in private practice in her own office.   She has run for public office, specifically as the Republican candidate for State of Connecticut attorney general in 2002 and 2010.   She is married, having married her husband in August 2008.   They live in Avon, Connecticut.   Because both parties live in Avon, school choice is not an issue for consideration in this custody matter.

The parties were married from 1984 to 1993.   After their divorce they once again began living together in 1996.   The minor child whose custody is at issue here was born of that relationship.   The parties have no other children together.   The minor child has his own bedroom in both of his parents' homes.

During E's early years, the parties' business offices were in the same building;  play space for E was set up in between the offices.   Valinho describes himself as primary caretaker for the child's first five years;  the mother resists this description.   At this late date, it is a nonissue.   The child was well-bonded with both of his parents in his earliest years, spending significant time with both of them, enjoying a significant attachment to both.

[Text redacted.]

During the evaluation the parents often described E's behavior very differently.   As early as 2003, Dean criticized Valinho regarding certain aspects of his care of E, including that he put him to bed too late.  [Text redacted.]

[Text redacted.]   This incident served as a wedge between these two parents rather than an opportunity for them to acknowledge that they both faced the challenges of parenting.

[Text redacted.]

[Text redacted.]   As the years unfolded, both parents put their own interests, concerns and needs ahead of their child's well-being.

At roughly the same time as the Wheeler Clinic evaluation, the parties physically separated.   Custodial proceedings were commenced by Dean on January 15, 2004.   The guardian ad litem, Jeffrey Mickelson, was appointed by the court on January 16, 2004.  (He has served in that role continuously since that date, over seven years of this child's life.)   The parties' pendente lite stipulation for joint custody was entered on February 3, 2004.

In furtherance of those proceedings, Anne M. Phillips, a forensic clinical psychologist performed a custody evaluation.   It was completed on September 8, 2004.   This court gives no weight to her findings regarding Valinho.   This is the result of his duplicity and lying to her:  he failed to disclose to her the existence of his second family as detailed further in this decision.

The court disregards any recommendations embodied in Phillips' report.   While the observations and findings regarding Dean may have value, the court is constrained to give them no weight since this evaluator is deceased and therefore not available for cross examination.

The parties reached an agreement as to custody after the completion of Phillips' report.   A stipulation entitled Custody/Parenting Agreement was filed with the court on February 7, 2005.   Essentially, it is a true joint custody plan (2–2–5–5 in the parlance of the jargon ² ).  Donald Hiebel, a clinical psychologist, was designated the role of a parenting mediator/co-ordinator, [text redacted].   Judgment was entered in accordance with that agreement.

During the course of the Phillips evaluation, Dean retained the psychiatrist James Black as a consultant.   He has remained her consultant from 2004 to the present date.

One year later, in 2006, Valinho orchestrated a plan to disclose the existence of his hidden family.   Dean was told separately from E. E was told with Valinho present.   Both were accomplished in therapy sessions set up by Valinho.   Unknown to Dean, as early as 2001, Valinho was in a romantic relationship with his now present wife.   She had been E's babysitter/nanny.   They had a child born in 2003.   Only when she was pregnant again with their second child, and Valinho desired to bring his Brazilian family to Connecticut, did he decide he should tell Dean and E about their existence.   Valinho claimed that he delayed disclosing this information because he feared Dean's response and he wanted her and the child to be informed in a therapeutically sensitive environment.   As a result of this path chosen by him, Dean was not included in the decision of how to explain the situation to E. This was manipulative and inappropriate conduct by Valinho.   Throughout their relationship a constant flavor permeated:  Dean distrusted Valinho and did not think well of him.   His choice to secret his other family for years only fed Dean's distrust of him.   It constituted an affirmation of her worst fears about him.   Nothing positive resulted from Valinho's chosen path here.

Dean's reaction to Valinho's disclosure did not help E settle into life at his father's house with the new family.   On March 27, 2006, Dean filed an ex parte motion for restraining order and contempt in which she alleged that Valinho planned to remove the child to Brazil.   Relief was sought by way of a restraining order and an order for Valinho to turnover the child's passport to the guardian ad litem.   Valinho offered to the guardian ad litem to turn the passport over to him immediately.   The guardian found it unnecessary before the court date.   Also on March 27, 2006 Valinho filed an ex parte motion for order of return of the child.   Dean had taken the child to her family of origin's home in Vermont at a time not provided for in the court ordered schedule.   Dean asserted that she followed the advice of her therapist, Rima Brauer, who supported her in believing that Valinho might flee with the child and that she should remove him, notwithstanding that there was no evidence of the same.   The lack of communication and tension between the parties led to the resulting dueling motions in court.   That same date, March 27, 2006, a stipulation was entered into by the parties and made an order of the court.   Essentially, it preserved the status quo here in Connecticut.   The child returned to Connecticut with his mother, the passport was turned over to the guardian ad litem [text redacted].

A motion to modify custody was filed by Dean on February 7, 2007.   A forensic custody evaluation was once again performed, this time by Sidney Horowitz, a clinical psychologist.   His written report was not placed in evidence in this trial but the transcript of his deposition taken on March 6, 2007 was entered into evidence.   He described Valinho as a passive-aggressive person and Dean as “very detail and action oriented.”  [Text redacted.]   As described by Horowitz, it is hard for any reasonable person to not come to the same conclusion.   Other issues regarding the parties were examined by him, including the issue of alienation of the child from his father.

Horowitz was of the opinion that at the time he evaluated the family, Dean was engaging in the alienation of the child from his father.   It was his opinion, “that if she felt that an individual who she trusted, and at some point loved, could betray her in such a way that he could also betray and hurt somebody else who he professes to love, their son.   So through a mechanism called projective identification or transferring on that feeling to somebody else, there was a conscious or unconscious attempt, I believe, on Dean's part to protect her son.   When one wants to protect their child, they sometimes become over ideational, meaning they make things bigger, stronger;  they exaggerate certain events that occur, as if to say, I'm going to protect you in a way that I wasn't able to protect myself.   That at times is a precursor to my understanding of what child alienation can be.”

An example Horowitz cited is an email that Dean wrote describing her parenting reaction to E when he was struggling and confused and feeling like he was going crazy:  “I wrapped my arm around [him] and said, ‘Honey you're not crazy, you're not crazy.   But people like your father can make you feel that way ․ Focus on being the kind of person you want to be.   Focus on the things you care about, things you can control.   Don't focus on your father, and what he does.   Neither of us can explain what he does.   Try to let the rest go.   There's nothing that you can do about that.   Once you learn to let go, it doesn't hurt so much.’  “ Based on his evaluation and subsequent emails between the parents that he reviewed, Horowitz opined in 2007 that the parties were unable to communicate effectively on their own and may not be able to even with the assistance of a third party.   The court gives weight to Horowitz's findings at that time.

[Text redacted.]

Horowitz had also recommended that Valinho introduce his Brazilian family to the minor child in a ‘developmentally sensitive’ way.   He had recommended to the guardian ad litem that the family reside outside of the home while E continued his time with his father at the home and a plan of introduction be made with E's therapist.   He found that Valinho's choice to simply move the family in the home without any of these safeguards or supports was not helpful to a smooth and worry free transition for E. The court finds it ironic and disingenuous of Valinho to insist that the manner in which E and his mother be told of the Brazilian family be ‘therapeutic’ but he resisted the same notion for the physical introduction of this family.

Once again the parties came to court with an agreement to resolve their custody disputes.   By a document filed March 19, 2007, entitled Revised Custody/Parenting Agreement, the parties modified their custody arrangement.   The agreement was ordered by the court on the same date.   The custody schedule was essentially left intact.  [Text redacted.]   Further, Liza Thayer, a clinical psychologist was enlisted as a new parenting counselor/conflict manager.   Another evaluation was ordered to be done by Kyle Pruett ³ to look into [text redacted].   The court order provided that the child was not to miss school without “a medically verifiable excuse or emergency.”

In 2007, the child told his father that he would no longer fly anywhere with him.   The last time he had was in 2006.  [Text redacted.]

In August 2008 E took a two-week driving vacation with his father.  [Text redacted.]   During that vacation, Dean was in Australia and became engaged to Malcom McGough.   The child was told about it when he returned from his trip with his father.   She asked E to keep it a secret from his father.   She states this was to protect her privacy.   The court finds it more likely than not it was because Valinho had kept a secret from them, she wanted to have E join her in a secret from him.

On Election Day in 2008, the child was to be with his father.   The mother wanted to take the child to vote with her.  [Text redacted.]   On the same date the father filed an ex parte motion for orders regarding the access schedule.   [Text redacted.]   After commencement of a hearing on the above motions, the parties entered into a further agreement.   This time, the agreed goal of restoring the father's access to the child was to be accomplished as follows:  they were to meet with Thayer;  she was charged with the responsibility of having the parties agree to an access schedule consistent with the best interest of the child.

[Text redacted.]

From November 2010 until the October 2010 court order, the child did not spend any nights at his father's home.   The father did not insist that E stay with him.   He acquiesced in E's returning to his mother's each evening.   From December 2008 until the October 2010 court order, the child refused to go to his father's home.   During that time, the circumstances under which he saw his father were extremely limited.   They were never alone.

On February 22, 2009, the father filed a motion for contempt in court claiming that the mother was undermining his relationship with the child and she was not following through on Thayer's recommendations.   On February 24, 2009, the parties entered into stipulations which were made orders of the court.   The parties were ordered to prioritize the meetings with Thayer and [text redacted].⁴  Meanwhile, Valinho provided Dean yet another reason to distrust him when he secretly taped the parties' sessions with Thayer.   Black noted in his testimony, however, that this was likely not done out of malice, that passive people commit acts such as this to try to gain some control.   The court concurs.

Particularly striking during the trial was the testimony by Valinho that the child's name on his backpack was E Dean rather than E Valinho.   When asked about it, Dean said it was for safety so that his real name was not on it.   The court does not believe this statement.

The parties were back in court on May 6, 2009.   They agreed to court orders regarding the [text redacted] co-ordination of mental health care providers and access issues surrounding the mother's impending marriage to McGough.

In June 2010, Valinho was on the phone with E. As a result of an open connection, he overheard McGough using foul, aggressive language with E and heard some sounds that suggested a physical altercation was occurring.  [Text redacted.]   As a result of overhearing the cell phone call, on June 21, 2010, the father filed an ex-parte motion for custody seeking a suspension of the mother's access to the child, [text redacted].   A third contemporaneous motion by the father sought a court ordered psychological or psychiatric evaluation of the plaintiff.   The ex parte motion was set down for hearing.   An interim agreement was entered as a court order on June 29, 2010.⁵

On July 27, 2010 the parties agreed, and the court ordered that the parents involve themselves, the child and their spouses in therapy with James Black toward the goal of the child “having a loving, positive and involved relationship with his father.”   This therapy never came about because on the very first appointment the mother refused to participate in accordance with Black's direction.   Thereafter, the mother refused to participate in this court ordered therapy.

Dean developed a notion that the father's access to the child should be nurtured only through a set of scenarios orchestrated by her and highly controlled by her.   Her effort was not successful in rekindling the relationship of the child with his father.   Dean's failure to follow through with the court ordered therapy program developed by Black was willful noncompliance.   It leads this court to conclude that there is no reasonable likelihood that the mother will obey a court order that she believes she can disregard with impunity.

On September 16, 2010 the parties entered into a court-ordered stipulation which provided that Linda Smith would perform a custody evaluation and that she should “have access to all family members, the GAL and AMC and other mental health professionals who have been or are currently involved” with the family.   It also provided that “[b]oth parties shall be subject to psychological testing, and other family members will be subject to testing to the extent required, requested or determined necessary by Smith.”   The two pending motions were referred for trial at the Regional Family Trial Docket.

A hearing was held at the end of September/beginning of October 2010, at the Regional Family Trial Docket on a variety of contempt motions involving custody issues.   After the hearing the court ordered the parties to comply with the existing court orders and entered other attendant orders to ensure the compliance.   The parties also stipulated that the evidence adduced at that hearing was to be incorporated in, and part of the evidence for this trial.

[Text redacted.]

[Text redacted.] ⁶

[Text redacted.]

When the court looks at the statutory best interest factors,⁷ several major strands emerge in considering what custodial arrangement is best for this child.

The first inquiry the court must engage in is whether this child is physically and emotionally safe with both of his parents.   It is most probable that E is physically safe in both homes.   The rare episodic outbursts that have resulted in physical altercations have not posed any real threat to E's safety, whether with his parents or his stepfather.  [Text redacted.] ⁸

[Text redacted.]

The evaluator noted that the process of care by mental health providers for this family over the last few years has sought to address the parental conflict while paying far less attention to the child's mental health needs.  [Text redacted.]

The evaluator concluded that the child also has many of the characteristics of alienated children.   It is not necessary to repeat them all here;  suffice it to say the court agrees with the findings that these characteristics are those of a child alienated from his father and aligned with his mother.   The mother has contributed to this in many ways:  by allowing the child to make decisions as to whether to have contact with his father, not speaking positively of the father to the child, and placing no photos of his father in her home or even in his bedroom in that home, not allowing the child to be picked up at her home, not encouraging contact of the father by the child, believing the father is dangerous and not shielding the child from her feelings, not correcting the child's beliefs about the father, allowing the child to gain information about the litigation through her, asking the child to keep secret from his father (and others) her engagement to McGough, and blaming the father for the child's challenging personality characteristics.   The evaluator also notes that the mother's belief that Valinho is dangerous has been encouraged by the mother's therapist.

At the same time, Smith notes that Valinho has contributed to the child's alienation from him.   He has done so by allowing the child to make decisions as to when he will have contact with his father and on what terms, by being far too passive and conflict avoidant allowing the situation to continue and by not fully appreciating and understanding the adverse impact that would occur (and did) by the precipitous integration of the child with his second family, particularly when it was ill-advised by mental health professionals involved with the family.

The court agrees with the evaluator in rejecting the view that the alienation of the child from the father results from the father being abusive to either the child or the mother.   There is simply no evidence before the court to show he was abusive toward the child.   The evaluator's information gathering regarding the mother's claim of abuse by the father supported no instances of abuse other than, inconclusively, one claim that he shoved her.   The mother presented in court as one who would never tolerate physical abuse from anyone.

The evaluator also rejected the notion that the child's alienation from his father is part of the normal developmental process, because his reaction is extreme.

It is the evaluator's conclusion that Dean has both directly and indirectly contributed to the child's alienation from his father [text redacted].   Further, the court finds that if the current custody arrangement continues, it is unlikely that the mother will function differently regarding these matters.   The court finds that the enforcement of the equal physical custody time since October 2010 has only occurred because Dean is fearful of the loss of custody if she does not honor the court order to the letter.   Dean is rigid, mistrustful and paranoid about Valinho.   She is not likely to change.   The little progress achieved regarding food and the automobile are not sufficient for the court to be able to conclude that this child has been able to throw off his beliefs.   He was clear with his guardian that he is just biding his time until the end of the court case.

E has told his guardian that he wants little to do with his father.   Normally, the court might consider the opinion of a child of his cognitive ability at his age.  Knock v. Knock, 224 Conn. 776, 788–89, 621 A.2d 267 (1993).   Here, however, when it is so clear to the court that his negative feelings with his father are fueled by his mother and he is struggling emotionally, as described herein, the court cannot give significant weight to the opinions of the child.

II

[Text redacted.]

[Text redacted.]

Before examining Black's recommendations, the court must go on to examine Smith's recommendations regarding E's alienation from his father and his alignment with his mother.  [Text redacted.]

Smith recommends that the court order the removal of E from his mother for a period of time coupled with a particularized therapeutic system designed to address alienation with both of his parents.   Juxtaposed, and in conflict with this recommendation, is the recognition that Valinho's home does not present an ideal living arrangement for the child.   Valinho's family may be a vibrant place for E to live and grow in but it also provides significant stressors to him.   The fact remains that this family, in its very presence, represents a constant reminder of the issues that E has struggled with.   Smith noted that Valinho and Valerie Valinho are not united in attachment to E:  [text redacted].   She acknowledged that this has been a marital stressor for her as well.   While the recent therapeutic support of Humphrey (the defendant's clinical psychologist consultant who also co-ordinated with Black at times) has been helpful to her.   The court is confronted with unchartered territory as to how Valerie Valinho will regard E if he is a full-time resident of her home, and thus, whether he will be a welcome member and whether the home will be emotionally fractured if he lives there.   Also, Valinho has demonstrated that he can take direction when attempting to deal with E in a manner more consistent with the child's needs.   This ability to be flexible and adaptable is a strength of Valinho's that can be exploited to help him learn to properly support E as a parent.

In fashioning the orders of custody for this family the court is confronted with the different strengths and weaknesses both of his parents bring to their roles.   Stated summarily by Smith, E needs structure, routine, discipline and expectations.   His father's style of teaching is to teach through example, modeling.   This does not go well with E's needs;  it is too subtle, he needs a more obvious, directive parenting.   This is precisely Dean's parenting style.

However, Smith finds that Dean's [text redacted] resistance to psychological help for him and failure to recognize his struggles, continuing to perceive him as a typical, normal boy, she “cannot be the primary reporter of E's functioning and needs.”   Plainly put, Dean should not be the day-to-day parent to be relied upon to provide for E's emotional health needs.   Smith warns that notwithstanding Valinho's parenting style being less than ideal for E's needs, and the stressors in Valinho's home, E cannot continue to primarily live with his mother because she has demonstrated that she is incapable of recognizing his mental health problems and seeking and supporting the necessary treatment for them.

Smith also notes that Dean's personality style shows her to be very high on the spectrum of paranoid as a character trait.   Character traits are ingrained and resistant to change.  [Text redacted.]

Black's recommendations differ from Smith's, based largely on his view that the alienation of E from his father is not as severe as Smith perceives it to be.   It should be noted, that while Black functioned for over six years as an advisor to Dean and her counsel, since the middle of 2010 he has been more of a family consultant.   Black has met with E at least two times (with Humphrey).   Black's clinical perceptions of the child is that he is very bright, rigid, moralistic, critical, very knowledgeable, and convinced he is right in what he thinks.   E is not intimidated at all by his father, Black observed.   Black does not disagree with Smith's assessments;  he takes issue with at least one of her recommendations.

Regarding parenting, it is Black's impression that E is intimidated by his mother and she uses this to control E. However, E is not fearful of her physically.   He does however respond to her tone of voice, her look;  while firmness is a good parental quality, Black stated that Dean sometimes goes ‘over the line,’ becoming ‘a little intimidating’ to her son and making him anxious.   On the other hand, Black describes Valinho as a more passive person who parents through modeling.   Black describes these personality characteristics as perfect for E in a few years (when he is a late adolescent) but problematic for the child now.   Black sees E as strong-willed.   Black fears that Valinho's parenting approach will make the child more belligerent and difficult to control throughout his mid-adolescent period.   These descriptions and opinions are consistent with those offered by Smith in her testimony.

Black thinks E is only moderately alienated from his father.   Therefore, Black does not think E's removal from his mother is mandated.   Black describes a severely alienated child as one that will not visit with, talk to or communicate in any way with the alienated parent, saying vile things about that parent.   He noted that as E's interviews with Smith progressed during the evaluation, the child calmed down about his dislike of his father.   Further, not long before testifying, Black learned that E secretly called his father when his mother was away.   Black pointed out that this shows a desire for contact that is followed up on when he is not intimidated by his mother.

Black testified that the court “did a favor to these parents in October 2010 or ordering the return to shared parenting.”  [Text redacted.]

[Text redacted.]

Black recommends the court order a new family oriented psychotherapy, precisely along the lines of what was intended and ordered previously.   While Dean sabotaged that by refusing to participate, Black is of the opinion that it is feasible now because Dean is “aware that her back is against the law.”   He notes she complied with the return to shared parenting and [text redacted].  [Text redacted.] ⁹  Black thinks Dean is ready to comply with family oriented psychotherapy now.   The family oriented psychotherapy he has in mind would last about six weeks with these three family members, and the parents' spouses all available to participate in therapeutic work with the mental health professional.   Black acknowledged that the likely success of this program would depend on the strength of future judges' transmittal to Dean the importance of adherence to court orders.   This is troubling.   Implicit in Black's statement is that (1) there will be continued court proceedings regarding this family's custodial conflict, and, (2) Dean will be compliant only if she is forced to be, not because she has embraced any different view of her role in creating or solving E's problems.   Surely that cannot be good for this child.

Black indicates that everyone involved with this family has allowed E to make too many decisions:  who he lives with and when, whether or not he will get to school on time and what he purchases.   As to the latter, the father unfortunately gave him access to an Apple account that he abused beyond the authority he was given by his father.   Only lately has the father made E begin to deal with the consequences of it.   As to this and other discipline problems in the father's home, Valinho indicates, once again, that he has been loathe to discipline E because he was afraid that he would lose whatever bond he has with him.   With the intervention of Humphrey, Valinho has come to understand that this approach is harmful to E who needs him to impose his parenting will on him with rules and boundaries and consequences for violating them.

Black also provided the court valuable insight as to the role that Valinho's new family has played for E. When E learned of the second family, E was in his latency period where boys want to believe that their father is straightforward, honest and trustworthy.   When E learned about the second family, his trust in his father was corroded.   Black recommends that Valinho apologize to E in a therapeutic environment.   This will assist E in understanding that his father is acknowledging that he did something wrong and made a bad mistake.   Valinho also must ask E not to hold it against him.   While Valinho testified he has apologized, without the therapeutic support described here, the apology did not have the desired impact.¹⁰  This distrust over the second family has heightened E's state of alienating, since his sense of his father as an ideal has been diminished.

While removal of a child from a favored parent may be appropriate at times in alienation cases, Dr. Black thinks that it should be reserved as a last remedy, when all other remedies have failed.   Also because E is rebellious and self-righteous, Black fears that if he is removed from his mother it will turn his mother into a martyr in E's eyes and he will see her as blameless and never forgive his father.

Black asserted that if Dean fails to cooperate again with court ordered family oriented psychotherapy or if she fails to make the behavioral changes necessary on her part to support behavioral changes in E, [text redacted] fully unite with his father, then Smith's recommendations would be appropriate.   While Black is not convinced his recommendations will work, he believes they have a very good chance of working.   He does note that E's alienation from his father derives from the nonverbal and verbal cues from his mother.   He gave the example of E hearing, “you know what Carlos did now.”   Black envisions therapy where each parent apologizes to the child for the wrongs they did to him, and, that Dean be prodded to make assertive statements such as [text redacted].

The risks to E of the respective recommendations from these two prominent experts, Smith and Black is this:  Remove custody of the child from the mother and risk permanently destroying the child's relationship with his father, or, leave the child with his mother and hope that family psychotherapy will take hold and reverse a decade of harm to this child that mental health professionals to date have had no success in stemming.   Whichever way the court proceeds, Black emphasized that E must continue to understand that he is no longer in charge.   This has harmed his development.

Smith, in her recommendations, also suggested that the court order the family's participation in the Family Bridges program.   It is fully described in two articles in the Family Court Review, R. Warshak, “Family Bridges:  Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children” vol. 48, No 1, 48–80 (January 2010) and R. Warshak and M.R. Otis, “Helping Alienated Children with Family Bridges:  Practice, Research, and the Pursuit of “Humbition” Id., 91–7.   A commentary on the program is found in the same journal by Joan Kelly, Id. 81–90.   Smith has never made such a recommendation previously nor does she have actual knowledge of any family that participated in the program.   The Family Bridges program has never been subject to critical peer review.   The study described in the article was reported by the program creator(s) themselves.

Smith also recommends a thirty-day separation of E from his mother as described earlier in this decision to [text redacted] but also for the purpose of assisting him to overcome his sense of alienation on the one hand and alignment on the other hand, strengthened by the education received at Family Bridges.

III

The court also received evidence from Peter Jaffe, a clinical psychologist.   He was called as a witness by the mother.   Jaffe did not interview anyone involved in this matter.   Essentially his was a paper review of Smith's work.   Jaffe is a professor at the University of Western Ontario in London, Ontario.   He is also a clinical psychologist in Ontario (since 1974).   For thirty years he administered the London Family Court Clinic regarding child protection and custody matters.   He has written extensively about children and families, particularly where there is violence.   His article in the above referenced Family Court Review journal was submitted into evidence to the court.   His article (co-authored), “Early Identification and Prevention of Parent–Child Alienation:  A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention,” ¹¹ “offer[s] a new framework for approaching parent-child contact disputes in an effort to prevent alienation and respond more effectively to the early warning signs before more extreme measures have to be considered or implemented.” (137.)  In the article, Jaffe states it is too early to recommend the use of Warshak's Family Bridges program, even where ‘extreme and intensive intervention’ may be required.   He awaits evaluative data regarding the program before recommending its use.   Without the data, Jaffe is concerned that recommending the program may be in conflict with a psychologist's duty to do no harm.

The debate regarding the Family Bridges program that is embodied in the January 2010 Family Court Review journal is squarely before the court.   This court has read the relevant articles in the journal.   Ultimately, however, it is not for the court to conclude whether the Family Bridges program itself is the right choice.   The court acknowledges that the program has not been adequately subjected to peer review.   Without that, the court has no comfort in knowing that it is a generally accepted program of therapy likely to be positively responsive to the problems of this family.

The testimony by all of the experts here leads the court to conclude that it would be beneficial for E to be provided some psycho-educational therapeutic support regarding his family and how it has affected his own mental health.   While the court is not ordering it, the continued involvement of Dr. Black with this family may well be helpful.   It will be for the custodial parent to decide the proper program or modality.   Sole custody grants the custodian “the ultimate authority to make all decisions regarding a child's welfare, such as education, religious instruction and medical care.”  Emerick v. Emerick, 5 Conn.App. 649, 657 n.9, 502 A.2d 933 (1985), appeal dismissed, 200 Conn. 804, 510 A.2d 192 (1986).

Instead of the Family Bridges Program, Jaffe wrote of an alternative option where there is an extreme case of alienation.   Instead, Jaffe writes:  “We recommend that serious consideration be given to another extreme response for cases that reached a high level of alienation—that being to leave it as it is and not intervene with families to protect the children from the ongoing litigation and uncertainty.   The court may have to terminate the role of one parent, at least on a temporary basis, as part of a “cease fire plan.”   Although the children will not have an ongoing relationship with both parents, at least one parent has a significant relationship with the children and, leaving things alone allows that to continue with ongoing counseling as appropriate in the circumstance.   In at least some of these cases there may be spontaneous child-initiated reunification with the rejected parent (Darnall & Steinberg, 2008).”   This court does not entertain an order severing the child's relationship with his father as part of a cease fire.   This would leave E [text redacted] and no antidote to the mother's continued undermining of any remaining positive feelings toward his father.

In his testimony regarding Smith's forensic custody evaluation for the court, Jaffe acknowledged that Smith was extremely thorough, that her work met all of the American Psychological Association guidelines for a custody evaluation, and that she was very meticulous in gathering data.   He also noted that Smith did well as an advocate for E, focusing on his special needs.   His critique of Smith's work in this case focused on two areas of concern:  her analysis surrounding the alienation issue and her recommendation regarding change of custody and the Family Bridges program.

It is Jaffe's view that Smith failed in her analysis to confront and give weight to what he refers to as ‘the original sin’:  the betrayal (his reference all of the second family issues of Valinho) and it being the causation of all of Dean's and E's distrust of Valinho.   Since Jaffe sees this as the catalyst, his view is that this is not a case of alienation but other psychodynamics instead.¹²  He noted that Smith's report seemed to excuse Valinho's conduct rather than understanding its importance in the family dynamics.   Jaffe characterized Dean as having suffered emotional violence, a form of domestic abuse, and E as having evolved in his thinking from benign thinking of the good news of siblings to an understanding as he gets older that his father lied to him and committed a serious breach of trust.

Jaffe criticizes Smith's finding that E is suffering from alienation, [text redacted] regarding to his father because the father has in Jaffe's mind provided a reasonable basis, [text redacted], lying about his family and business trips to Brazil:  these are the seeds of distrust.   Jaffe explained that he thinks that E gave Smith an explanation of his distrust of his father:  the lying about going to Brazil for business trips.   Jaffe asserts that Smith failed to appreciate this genesis explanation by the child.  (Jaffe acknowledged that much of his theory of this case is based on the supposition that this was a lie, without knowing whether it was or not.)  [Text redacted.]   Finally Jaffe notes, since E is complying with seeing his father since the court ‘put its foot down’ this cannot be seen, in any case, as severe alienation.   He recommends that since progress is being made that it be fostered with proper counseling for all by a highly skilled therapist, that an end to the war be declared with full apologies by the father to the mother and son, and, that the mother acknowledge what she has done to make a bad situation worse.¹³

On cross-examination, Jaffe acknowledged that if a parent supports thoughts in the mind of a child that are bad about the other parent and not true, then this is also a form of emotional abuse of the child.  [Text redacted.]   The court agrees that both parents have been emotionally abusive of their son.   A major distinction for the court, however, is that Valinho has shown regret for his behavior;  Dean does not accept or even recognize her own abusive conduct.

Subsequent to his testimony regarding the centrality of the role of betrayal of the mother by the father, Jaffe acknowledged that his theory is inapplicable under the following hypothetical that was placed before him:

Assume E was told he has a younger sister when he is 8 years old;  he is told in his therapist's office;  when he was told the parents are sharing the child 50/50 and he is doing basically well;  at the same time the mother is told by her therapist that it was likely that the father would try to remove the child so she advises the mother to take the child out of state;  the mother takes the child out of state in violation of a court order;  one year later (March 2007) the parties again agree to a court order of equal shared custody with a sanctions provision and there is no disruption until one and one-half years later;  said disruption occurring immediately after the child enjoying a two-week vacation with his father and the mother coming home and telling him that while he was away she became engaged;  that the child is to keep the engagement a secret from his father and his therapist;  within one week thereafter, the father's parenting time starts curtailing and within three months the child has no overnight access with the father and then no visiting the father at his home at all.   The court finds all of the facts stated in this hypothetical are proven based on the credible evidence in this case.   Jaffe testified that under the facts of this hypothetical that it is a reasonable and likely hypothesis that the mother's conduct is the cause of this alienation.   Inasmuch as the court finds these facts proven, the court rejects Jaffe's notion that the core issue in this case is the father's conduct regarding his second family.

By way of treatment to address the alienation in the facts proven here, Jaffe stated that the mother must disavow all of the statements that she has intentionally or unintentionally made causing E's thoughts and feelings about his father.   He went on to explain that it is important to him to know whether the mother is consciously or unconsciously acting because it is key to whether she can change when confronted.   This is not something the court can conclude.   However, the ability of the mother to conform herself to court orders since October 2010 when it finally became clear to her that her custody of E was at real risk, leads the court to infer that she has been acting more consciously than unconsciously.   Since Dean has demonstrated that she can conform her conduct to court orders when ‘her back is against it’ (Black testimony), then it is clear to the court that she can be sufficiently introspective to conform her messages to E about his father, if forced to by court order.   Dean is a very bright woman, well trained in the law, and able to follow direction when she perceives it in her best interest.   If she did not know that she was originally alienating the child form his father, surely she knew it at some point over these litigious years.   Surely she knew it when her own expert Black confronted her with it.   Her total resistance until October 2010 is concerning because it makes clear to the court that there is a tangible difference between what she will do when she has to and what she wants to do regarding E and his father.   Her ability to surrender control over this relationship is questionable.   She has disregarded any mental health professional whose opinion is different than hers, including her own expert Black.

Jaffe does not embrace Smith's recommendation of removing E from his mother for a period of time.   Jaffe cautions, that before the court consider a very intrusive solution to a situation of serious alienation, the court consider that, “[e]ven in the face of pathological bonding with the preferred parent, an abrupt termination of the relationship (a virtual “parentectomy”—see J. Johnston, Roseby & Kuehnle (2009)—can be traumatic and may disrupt children's social and school relationships that were important sources of stability and security for them.”   Jaffe, et al., Family Court Review, op.cit. at 150.   Instead he recommends an approach in line with the proposals outlined in J. Johnston, and J. Goldman J., “Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children who Resist Visitation:  An Addendum to Friedlander and Walthers (2010),” Family Court Review, op.cit., 112–15.   A particular kind of family counseling is studied in the article;  a range of outcomes is described.   It is similar to the counseling recommended by Black.   Janet Johnston's longitudinal study notes at the end, however, that family counseling intervention may not be the indicated path, “where a careful evaluation indicates that the aligned parent is mentally ill or is a seriously character-disordered individual who blatantly avoids, refuses or sabotages any therapeutic intervention.”  Id., 114.   In such a situation, Johnston and Goldman state that the child needs “to be rescued by court orders that change custody, either to the better functioning parent or to a third party with the capacity to provide a healthier family environment.”  Id. While Jaffe's reference to this article was meant to reference the family counseling (such as Black's proposal), the court notes that Dean is a narcissistic and paranoid character-driven individual who has alternatively refused and sabotaged therapeutic intervention.   Therefore, change of custody must be seriously considered by the court to rescue E. [Text redacted.] ¹⁴

IV

Stephen Humphrey, a clinical psychologist, has been a consultant to Valinho.   He made inquiry regarding the Family Bridges Program.   Humphrey described it as a four-day program of psycho-education for the child and the parents.   He stated that if a path of family therapy is chosen by the court instead, as recommended by Black, then the court should order therapeutic supervision of Dean's parenting time to protect E.

While Humphrey originally supported Black's family oriented plan two and one-half years ago, he believes it is no longer appropriate.   Humphrey explained that traditional psychotherapy is not helpful here because it will lead to entrenchment of the sides, rehashing of pasts and would require personality change, which is most difficult.   He notes that Smith's testing found Dean to be moralistic, rigid, defended and having a healthy sense of self-esteem.   Humphrey stated that Smith also found her an intensely hyper-vigilant person.   Therefore, Humphrey explains that when Valinho's betrayal with his second family became known, her personality led her to protect E as her progeny, shielding the child from the source of these things.   Because of her personality traits, this will be difficult to change.   As a result he believes trying Black's approach will be of no value presently.   The court finds nothing in the evidence to suggest that Dean is any more willing to genuinely apply herself to family therapy now than she was two years ago.   Her concern over the loss of custody is all that motivates Dean. [Text redacted.]

Humphrey suggests, that instead of family oriented therapy, that the court order a psycho-educational approach such as that in the Family Bridges program model.   He noted that Jaffe in his writing described five levels of alienation and that he, Humphrey saw this family as ‘level five,’ an exceptional case of alienation requiring exceptional intervention.  [Text redacted.]   Finally, Humphrey suggests that the program should commence immediately without delay since it is only four days and can be done over a weekend.   He asserts that it would be harmful to wait until E finishes his school year.   Based upon his inquiry it is immediately available if cost is not a factor.

Humphrey makes this recommendation notwithstanding the lack of peer review of the Family Bridges program.   His view is that it is not invasive, it is educational and based on thirty years of research and it relies on probing articles regarding alienation in its construct.   Humphrey also opined that E is likely to handle the Family Bridges program and separation from his mother if he thought she was not in control of the circumstance.  [Text redacted.]

To increase the likelihood of success, Humphrey concurs with Smith that the use of the program should, coupled with a thirty-day separation of E from his mother.  [Text redacted.]

Humphrey does not agree with Jaffe's reliance on domestic violence as a causative element with this family.   It simply was not present.   He does however agree that the betrayal by Valinho was a catalyst for everything that has occurred.  [Text redacted.]   He should be provided the opportunity to do so as his adolescence develops, explained Humphrey.   He notes that it is crucial for the court to act now because E should not be entering his adolescence with views of his father that do not comport with reality.

Regarding Valinho's parenting of E, Humphrey has been advising the father that E needs clear consequences for his behavior in the home and for school refusal.   To his knowledge, since Valinho has been providing consequences, the child has been going to school consistently.

V

The minor child's guardian ad litem has been involved with this family in that role since 2004, seven years ago.   His testimony of September 30, 2010 was included in the evidence before this court.  [Text redacted.]

[Text redacted.]   This was in 2006.   Matters only worsened since then.

[Text redacted.]

As discussed earlier E has struggled this school year and had some serious problems with tardiness and absence when coming to school from his father's home.   The challenge of falling behind in French was not surmountable because the learning builds on itself.   Once that course was dropped and the principal's independent study was substituted, E has been performing much better.   His school tardy markings have also significantly reduced since the father has added consequences for failing E if he does not get moving on time.

The guardian is of the opinion that these parents cannot co-parent.   The court concurs;  it is a recipe for continuing disaster for this child.   The use of conflict managers throughout these years has not brought these parents any closer to an ability to make decisions together.   The court finds that the father is likely to seek the opinion of the mother when he deems it important for the well-being of the child.   The court finds it is not likely that the mother will seek the opinion of the father.   She has demonstrated this by her own conduct.   When the parties have disagreed about extracurricular activities, she has gone ahead and committed the child to the things she favored.

The guardian stated that while the father has spoken negatively of the mother, [text redacted] these claims pale before the magnitude of the manner in which the mother has undermined the father as a parent, both as a decision maker and as a physical custodian.   The court concurs.   Finally, the guardian finds that the mother is less likely to support the father's relationship with the child (as is evident throughout the found facts in this decision) than the father is with the mother.

While referring to the father as a competent, nurturing parent, the guardian ad litem noted that the father could offer more structure and assertiveness to the child.   His accommodating style, as noted by others, is not ideal for E at this time.   E responds to his mother's assertive style.   The father has shown himself more adaptable than the mother.   The guardian is concerned that E's poor relationship with this father must be remedied as soon as possible.  [Text redacted.]

The court concurs.   The failures of the father to be honest about his second family cannot be dismissed.   They however remain only a catalytic event which triggered the mother's unharnessed undermining of the father.   There were so many different ways this mother could have reacted.   Her bitterness and distrust, while valid emotions for herself as an adult, have never been held in check as she has undermined her son's relationship with his father, which has caused this child grave harm.  [Text redacted.]   The failure of this mother to recognize the harm she causes her child in her own conduct and words is disheartening.   This child is so aligned with his mother and alike her in many ways;  he is dependent on her for emotional affirmance.

The court is persuaded that the most appropriate way to help this child [text redacted] is to remove him from his mother for a period of time in which he receives mental health support.   While this remedy is also suggested to counteract the alienation, the court is less persuaded that simple alienation in and of itself, would have called for such a drastic remedy here.   This child is seeing his father now and opportunities are sure to develop to solidify this relationship.   Indeed, the poor relationship of the child with Vivian Valinho is also a serious stressor.   It is founded in her role as the secret lover of his father and her frustration with E's behavior in her home.   Perhaps a different schedule weighted toward more time with the father would be warranted to counter-act the alienation, [text redacted].   Regrettably, that is not what the court is confronted with.   These two issues intertwine inextricably.   They must be addressed together.

It is the hope of this court that strict adherence to these court orders and support of E as he experiences the changes now to take place in his life will ameliorate his distress as he experiences the new transitions inherent in these orders.   He will be very unhappy and resistant.  [Text redacted.]   Dean must avail herself of the probing therapy necessary for her to recognize the harm she has done her child so he is not at risk to its repetition in the future.   Valinho must strengthen his resolve to provide the care that E most needs now, not the care Valinho is most comfortable providing.  [Text redacted.]

A mother can hardly be faulted for not readily relinquishing the custody of her children after a bitterly contested custody fight, absent any present legal obligation to do so, particularly when she had had custody pendente lite ․

In the absence of judicial instruction, the rights of parents to use self-help to effectuate custody changes after judgment and before appeal are unclear.   We have previously held that pendente lite orders of alimony, and inferentially of custody, do not survive the rendition of a judgment.  Tobey v. Tobey, 165 Conn. 742, 745, 345 A.2d 21 (1974);  Saunders v. Saunders, 140 Conn. 140, 146, 98 A.2d 815 (1953).   The judgment itself, stayed by the rules of the Practice Book 3065, is not binding for twenty days.   In this twenty-day gap period, the parties arguably may revert to their common law rights, under which both are entitled, without preference, to take custody.   Such a resolution is not only unseemly but is inconsistent with the concern, repeatedly enunciated in the statutes and the cases, for the best interests of the children.  General Statutes 46b–56;  Agnello v. Becker, 184 Conn. 421, 428–29, 440 A.2d 172 (1981);  Seymour v. Seymour, supra, 712;  Simons v. Simons, supra, 347.

A trial court rendering a judgment in a disputed custody case should therefore consider entering protective orders sua sponte to ensure an orderly transition that protects the primary interests of the children in a continuous, stable custodial placement.  Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275, 291–2, 440 A.2d 899 (1981).

The court is concerned about the smooth transitions to the implementation of these orders.   Accordingly the court is also making orders for the immediate and smooth implementation of these orders, as it will cause the child the least disruption.   The court recognizes that these orders, themselves, will not be readily accepted by the child in his current state.   An interim period of further disruption cannot be helpful to him.

VI

Orders

The court finds that the present custody orders are not in the best interest of the minor child E for the reasons stated above.   The defendant's motion is granted as stated hereinafter.   The plaintiff's motion is denied.

The judgment is opened and modified in accordance with the following orders.

1. The father shall have sole legal custody.   He shall make all legal decisions affecting the upbringing of the minor child.   Other than emergency decisions, the father shall first consult with the mother via OurFamilyWizard.   After receiving her input which shall be provided within 24 hours of a request, he shall make the decision at hand.   This order includes the scheduling of any math tutoring this summer.

Notwithstanding the general grant of sole legal custody to the father, the father shall not change the child's citizenship, religion (Roman Catholic), school or pediatrician without the express written agreement of the mother.

2. Effective immediately, the minor child shall reside with the father.   The court does not order any particular program of psycho-education for the child, such as that housed with Warshak.   The court leaves solely to the father as custodial parent the choice of such care to assist the child in the transition to living with his father and to assist [text redacted].

[Text redacted.]

4. The father shall take at least 2 weeks of vacation over the summer with the child, at home or away in which they are together without other members of the father's family present.

5. Effective immediately the child shall have no contact with his mother until the next hearing date, direct or indirect.   If the child's therapist recommends a relaxation of this order to secure the immediate emotional or physical safety of the minor child (and for no other reason), then it may be relaxed but only for that reason and to that extent.   Neither parent is to unilaterally vary or deviate from the terms of this order.

As a result of this order, the child shall not attend either camping trip planned by the mother with her family and others.

6. The father is to communicate daily with the mother and the guardian ad litem through Our Family Wizard as to the activities and health of the child.   He is to notify the mother immediately if any emergency arises regarding the child.

7. The above orders are to remain in effect until such time as the following occurs:

[Text redacted.]

ii. The mother has engaged a new therapist at a PHD level, or psychiatrist, inasmuch as the court finds, based upon the mother's testimony, that her present therapist has not been helpful to the mother in the issues before this court.   Said therapist shall among other responsibilities assigned by the mother, treat the mother for such matters as necessary for her to accept her responsibility for her role in E's thoughts about and relationship with his father.   The court finds this necessary to protect the child's best interest.

8. The father shall continue in therapy with Humphrey to assist him in his parenting techniques and to ensure that their home is a welcoming environment for E. The court finds this necessary to protect the child's best interest.

9. A continued hearing is held by the court on August 26, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether it is in the child's best interest to resume contact with his mother and on what basis.   Incident to that hearing will be the entry of orders regarding parenting (both as to physical time and as to decision-making responsibility) for the ensuing future.

10. The guardian ad litem shall remain in his appointment until relieved of his duties by the court.

11. The guardian ad litem and the father shall meet the child immediately;  the guardian ad litem shall, while alone with the child, communicate these orders to the child.   The mother, who will not be present at this meeting, may hand the guardian a note for delivery to the child which provides to him assurance of her love but no comment on these orders or the custody proceedings.

12. The provisions of Gen.Stat. 46b–56(g) apply and such right of access is so ordered.

13. These orders are effective immediately.

VII

The defendant, in this hearing, also sought relief pursuant to a motion for contempt dated August 10, 2010 (# 181).   In that motion, the defendant seeks a finding of contempt for the failure of Dean to comply with the court order of July 27, 2010 ordering family therapy with Black.   The court finds that court order clear and unambiguous.   The court, in the findings above, has found that the plaintiff has failed to comply with that order and that her failure was willful.   The plaintiff is found in contempt of court.   The defendant seeks the same relief he has sought in his motion ruled upon above.   The above rulings are based upon many circumstances, not merely this contempt finding.   For this finding of contempt the court orders no specific relief.

MUNRO, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Because of the level of notoriety attached to some proceedings in this matter, resulting from the public nature of the mother's pursuit of public office, the court has determined that the other children of the father, to the extent possible should be protected by anonymity, and where necessary, the subject of these proceedings should be protected by similar anonymity and the sealing of portions of this decision that directly relate to the child himself.   This does render some of the writing somewhat awkward to accommodate the sealing of these sensitive facts..  FN1. Because of the level of notoriety attached to some proceedings in this matter, resulting from the public nature of the mother's pursuit of public office, the court has determined that the other children of the father, to the extent possible should be protected by anonymity, and where necessary, the subject of these proceedings should be protected by similar anonymity and the sealing of portions of this decision that directly relate to the child himself.   This does render some of the writing somewhat awkward to accommodate the sealing of these sensitive facts.

FN2. The sequence of 2–2–5–5 refers to a parenting schedule model in which the children are with each parent for half of a 14–day cycle with the numbers denominating the number of days with each..  FN2. The sequence of 2–2–5–5 refers to a parenting schedule model in which the children are with each parent for half of a 14–day cycle with the numbers denominating the number of days with each.

FN3. The family was never evaluated by Pruett..  FN3. The family was never evaluated by Pruett.

FN4. Valinho had claimed that Dean was missing Thayer appointments in favor of other commitments of hers [text redacted]..  FN4. Valinho had claimed that Dean was missing Thayer appointments in favor of other commitments of hers [text redacted].

FN5. The difference in how Dean and Valinho each responded to the Election Day incident and this one is instructive.   Each was quick to file pleadings in court when something untoward had occurred with E while he was in the other parent's household..  FN5. The difference in how Dean and Valinho each responded to the Election Day incident and this one is instructive.   Each was quick to file pleadings in court when something untoward had occurred with E while he was in the other parent's household.

FN6. [Text redacted.].  FN6. [Text redacted.]

FN7. (c) In making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors:  (1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child;  (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child;  (3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child;  (4) the wishes of the child's parents as to custody;  (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child;  (6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders;  (7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents' dispute;  (8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child;  (9) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments;  (10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child's family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household;  (11) the stability of the child's existing or proposed residences, or both;  (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child;  (13) the child's cultural background;  (14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child;  (15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 46b–120;  and (16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to section 46b–69b.   The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers..  FN7. (c) In making or modifying any order as provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the court shall consider the best interests of the child, and in doing so may consider, but shall not be limited to, one or more of the following factors:  (1) The temperament and developmental needs of the child;  (2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child;  (3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the child;  (4) the wishes of the child's parents as to custody;  (5) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child;  (6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders;  (7) any manipulation by or coercive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents' dispute;  (8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life of the child;  (9) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments;  (10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child's family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household;  (11) the stability of the child's existing or proposed residences, or both;  (12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child;  (13) the child's cultural background;  (14) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child;  (15) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 46b–120;  and (16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to section 46b–69b.   The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it considers.

FN8. [Text redacted.].  FN8. [Text redacted.]

FN9. [Text redacted.].  FN9. [Text redacted.]

FN10. Valinho reportedly did just this at a session with Schrager (as related by her to Smith).   Interestingly, when questioned as to what else these parents had to apologize to their son for her stated that the father should also apologize to him for allowing him to be placed in the middle of this mess and having to talk to so many people.   He stated that the mother should apologize to the child for allowing him to continue to take the position that his [text redacted] and for allowing him to keep his distance from his father and by not verbally reminding him of his father's love, therefore effectively giving the child permission to feel otherwise.   When looking at these misdeeds of the parents respectively, it is clear that the mother's have been and remain much more harmful to this child.   They must be remedied as a result of the court's custody order..  FN10. Valinho reportedly did just this at a session with Schrager (as related by her to Smith).   Interestingly, when questioned as to what else these parents had to apologize to their son for her stated that the father should also apologize to him for allowing him to be placed in the middle of this mess and having to talk to so many people.   He stated that the mother should apologize to the child for allowing him to continue to take the position that his [text redacted] and for allowing him to keep his distance from his father and by not verbally reminding him of his father's love, therefore effectively giving the child permission to feel otherwise.   When looking at these misdeeds of the parents respectively, it is clear that the mother's have been and remain much more harmful to this child.   They must be remedied as a result of the court's custody order.

FN11. Jaffe, P., Ashbourne, D., and Mamo, A. “Early Identification and Prevention of Parent–Child Alienation:  A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention” Family Court Review, op.cit. vol. 48, No. 1 at 137, January 2010..  FN11. Jaffe, P., Ashbourne, D., and Mamo, A. “Early Identification and Prevention of Parent–Child Alienation:  A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention” Family Court Review, op.cit. vol. 48, No. 1 at 137, January 2010.

FN12. One of the analogies he offered is that if the child sees his father strangle his mother then both will be affected:  [text redacted] and the mother will be hyper-vigilant.   This analogy is really inappropriate since nothing close to this ever happened in this case..  FN12. One of the analogies he offered is that if the child sees his father strangle his mother then both will be affected:  [text redacted] and the mother will be hyper-vigilant.   This analogy is really inappropriate since nothing close to this ever happened in this case.

FN13. It should be also noted that for all of the testimony offered by Jaffe he has never recommended a change of custody as his primary recommendation—only if there is not improvement after other methodologies are explored.He has not testified regarding an alienation case in over five years.   Most of his more recent work has been in the area of domestic violence..  FN13. It should be also noted that for all of the testimony offered by Jaffe he has never recommended a change of custody as his primary recommendation—only if there is not improvement after other methodologies are explored.He has not testified regarding an alienation case in over five years.   Most of his more recent work has been in the area of domestic violence.

FN14. Janet Johnston is a recognized expert in high-conflict divorcing couples in their children.   She has studied and written extensively about alienation..  FN14. Janet Johnston is a recognized expert in high-conflict divorcing couples in their children.   She has studied and written extensively about alienation.

Munro, Lynda B., J.