Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
W and H married in 1980 and purchased a home in Jamestown. W lived in Jamestown with their four children. H lived and worked in Dickinson, but lived with Diane and the children on weekends, holidays and vacations. The couple divorced in 1995. W received custody of the children and H was granted visitation. On October 1, 1997, H filed a motion for change of custody asserting W was alienating the children from him. A guardian ad litem reported on several occasions assistance from police officers was required to complete a visitation exchange; at one exchange, W's son-in-law verbally attacked the guardian, and at a second, one of the children obstinately dared her to 'try to make me go.' H's relationship with the children was described by the guardian as tenuous from the beginning because of his absence from the family home, and that W's alienating behavior was causing additional, harmful estrangement between H and the children. In an order dated December 9, 1997, the trial court awarded custody of the children to Stutsman County and ordered the family into therapy. Stutsman County declined. The court also stated: by deed and innuendo, W rewards the children's rejection of their father making this perhaps the worst case of alienation syndrome in the history of the United States. The court expressed a desire to send W to jail for her failure to comply with court orders, yet was concerned this would harm the children. The court ordered H's child support payments to be placed in escrow. The order also stated H should continue to have reasonable visitation but did not grant H custody because the relationship between the children and their father had been so poisoned. W's appealed and H's cross-appealed. The appeals court concluded the trial court erroneously ordered the child support to be placed in escrow as a sanction against W. An alternative remedy was to find her in contempt and impose a jail sentence. Just before the appeal, H filed another motion to change custody on April 9, 1998, with a supporting affidavit by the guardian ad litem. W demanded a change of judge and a change of venue. W's motion for change of venue was denied and then turning to consideration of the remand the court concluded there had been a significant change of circumstances following the original child custody determination. Because of W's misbehavior it found that it is in the best interest of the children that custody be changed. In addition, the trial court ordered that W have no visitation for one year after the custody transfer and required her to submit to counseling with a counselor chosen by H. W appealed from this order.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co