Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Child Custody

A finding of parental alienation in a Florida child custody case sometimes requires that extreme measures be taken in order to rectify or save a relationship between a parent and a child. In the appellate case Foreman v. James, 3D19-1802 (Fla. 3d DCA October 2, 2019), a mother appealed the trial court’s decision to order expensive reunification therapy that involved her having no contact with her daughter for more than 90 days based on a finding that the child was being alienated from her father.

The parties were never married and initially the mother was granted sole parental responsibility and primary care of the parties’ child. The father subsequently petitioned to modify the parties’ parenting plan so that he could take a more prominent role in his daughter’s life. At a hearing, a reunification therapist testified there was alienation on the mother’s part, but it was unclear to the therapist whether or not the behavior was intentional. The therapist suggested a program which could address the alienation. The court indicated it would consider ordering the program if the current course of reunification therapy proved unsuccessful. Counsel for both parties agreed to look into the program.

The parties returned to court about a month later and it was reported that the current course of therapy was moving very slowly and that the mother was undermining the progress because she was not supportive of the therapy. The court therefore ordered the parties to attend the aforementioned therapy program which required the father and child to travel to a location for a four-day workshop followed by no contact with the mother for 90 days. The court also ordered the mother to pay for the therapy upfront, reserving on apportioning costs later. The mother appealed, arguing it was a violation of her due process rights to to modify the current timesharing without affording her notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The appellate court denied the mother’s petition for a writ of certiorari, holding “As for notice, the Mother and her counsel attended both the July 2, 2019 and the August 13, 2019 case management conferences. The trial court plainly and without equivocation notified the parties of the urgency in resolving the child's alienation by the Mother. The Mother and her counsel knew from the July 2, 2019 case management conference that a main purpose for the trial court's re-assembling the participants six weeks later was to authorize a program such as [the program], or a similar alternative the parties might propose, to address the child's alienation from her Father. At the July 2nd hearing, counsel for both the Mother and the Father stipulated to exploring, and were ordered to explore, these options themselves; and the record plainly reflects that counsel for both parents actually investigated the Family Bridges program in anticipation of the August 13th case management conference. The record also reflects that the trial court afforded the Mother ample opportunity to speak at this August 13th hearing, where the Mother outlined her efforts to assist in reunification and admitted that her efforts, even with the assistance of the court-appointed reunification therapist, were not having the desired results. We, therefore, conclude that the Mother both received adequate notice and was afforded an opportunity to be heard, prior to the trial court entering the August 14th order.”

The court went on to hold, “While it certainly can be argued that requiring a child to attend a four-day, out-of-state workshop, followed by ninety days of no-contact with one parent, constitutes a modification of timesharing, we found no clearly established legal principle that a court-ordered, temporary remedy to address what the trial court has concluded is an urgent situation of parent-child alienation either equates to, or triggers the due process protections that must accompany, a formal timesharing modification.” Contact a Miami child custody lawyer to form a plan that is sensitive to the needs of your specific case.