Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Intervention in Child Alienation Cases
Prevention of the disintegration of families is such an important goal that judges, traditionally cautious, practical and careful, can be enlisted to actively try to reverse the effects of a family's crisis. When it appears that a child has been alienated from a parent, or soon will be, the necessity for judicial action is especially powerful.
The severing of a relationship between a parent and a child compromises a child's healthy development and is an emotionally devastating experience for the family. There is a substantial body of psychological literature that demonstrates significant negative short-term and long-term consequences for children who become alienated from one parent in the context of a divorce. Research studies, clinical observation and case reviews show that alienated children suffer from an array of emotional problems. At the very least, they begin to have distorted views about personal relationships and poor reality testing, they can become manipulative and callous in ways that compromise their interactions with others, and they have separation and identity issues.
Alienated children are at far greater risk for adjustment difficulties and emotional distress than children from litigating families who have not become alienated. Fidler, BJ and Bala, N. (2010). Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies and Conundrums, Family Court Review, 48 (1), 10-47.There is also evidence that the impact of alienation is long-lasting. Low self-esteem, self-blame, and guilt are reported by adults who were alienated as children. Baker, A.J. L. (2007). Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome, Breaking the Ties that Bind. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.