Sunday, December 21, 2008

Courts mixed on exes suing for tainting kids

In New Zealand unscrupulous court appointed children's lawyers like Chris Robertson and Adrienne Edwards actively encourage PAS, while sinister Court appointed psychologists like the criminal John Watson and Michael Davidson persecute the paternal family with unabated glee. It's so sick and destructive and the imbecile Judge Boshier wonders why the male suicide rate for forced clients of his caring civil court is a concern!

http://www.nj. com/news/ jjournal/ jerseycity/ index.ssf? /base/news- 7/12297579241597 70.xml&coll=3

Courts mixed on exes suing for tainting kids
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Should parents be allowed to sue their ex-spouses for turning their children against them?

A judge in Morris County said no in a case he decided in August. But last month, a Hudson County judge ruled the opposite way, that state law does not bar a parent from making a parental alienation claim in civil court.
The two cases are now headed to an appeals court, which will decide an issue that's being closely monitored by family law attorneys who are split over the issue. "What do you do when a child is being programmed to hate the other parent?"
Woodbridge attorney John Paone Jr. asked. "I believe you can't get justice in these alienation cases in the family court."
Attorney Cary Cheifetz, treasurer of the New Jersey chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, disagrees.
Such lawsuits "would cause more damage than good to society, families and children," he said. "The proper remedy is to fix the issue and undo the alienation by restoring the relationship. "
In the Morris County case, Superior Court Judge David Rand dismissed a complaint by retired multimillionaire developer Moses Segal against his former Canadian common-law wife, saying "New Jersey law simply does not allow recovery for the causes of action Segal asserts."
Rand cited the 1935 Heart Balm Act that abolished alienation of affection as grounds for a lawsuit.
Ruling in another case, Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli, sitting in Jersey City, disagreed. Gallipoli found the alienation claim barred by the Heart Balm Act pertained only to the marital relationship, not the children, and that a parent's claim of emotional distress resulting from being alienated from his children can be pursued in civil court.
"The Heart Balm Act doesn't prohibit what we're trying to do here," said Attorney Steven Resnick, who represents both Segal and Hoboken resident Vincent Smith, the father in the Gallipoli decision. "We want a jury to decide this."
In the Hudson County case, Vincent Smith sued his ex-wife, Rose Marie Smith, and her parents, accusing them of lying to his two daughters and making allegations of sexual misconduct and molestation.
Gallipoli allowed Smith's lawsuit against his in-laws to proceed, but dismissed the case against the ex-wife, saying Smith would first have to take his fight against her to Family Court. But the Family Court judge could allow Smith to seek monetary damages for his emotional distress claim in civil court, Gallipoli ruled.
Resnick is using Gallipoli's ruling to resurrect another parental alienation case in Essex County. Based on Rand's ruling, an Essex County judge dismissed Michael Besen's complaint that alleged his estranged wife, Sandra, caused him emotional distress by badmouthing him to the children.
"It's about time this nonsense comes to an end," Resnick said.

No comments: