Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Toward A Child-Centered Approach To Evaluating Claims Of Alienation In High-Conflict Custody Disputes, Allison M. Nichols
Toward A Child-Centered Approach To Evaluating Claims Of Alienation In High-Conflict Custody Disputes, Allison M. Nichols
Michigan Law Review
Theories of parental alienation abound in high-conflict custody cases. The image of one parent brainwashing a child against the other parent fits with what we think we know about family dynamics during divorce. The concept of a diagnosable “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (“PAS”) developed as an attempt to explain this phenomenon, but it has been widely discredited by mental health professionals and thus fails the standard for evidentiary admissibility. Nevertheless, PAS and related theories continue to influence the decisions of family courts, and even in jurisdictions that explicitly reject such theories, judges still face the daunting task of resolving these volatile …
Conflict Of Laws-Full Faith And Credit-Custody Decrees, James I. Huston
Conflict Of Laws-Full Faith And Credit-Custody Decrees, James I. Huston
Michigan Law Review
Husband and wife, living in Ohio, were separated in 1945, the only child going to live with the paternal great-grandfather in Pennsylvania. Husband and wife were divorced in Ohio in April 1949. Custody of the child was awarded the wife, but because of the wife's defective vision the child was to remain temporarily with the great-grandfather; it was further provided that the custody question could be relitigated after eighteen months. On October 26, 1949, the wife got a further Ohio decree awarding her sole custody. The great-grandfather refused to surrender the child, and wife filed a petition for habeas corpus …
Conflict Of Laws-Domicile Of Child Living With Mother, Charles E. Becraft S.Ed.
Conflict Of Laws-Domicile Of Child Living With Mother, Charles E. Becraft S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff and defendant, husband and wife, were domiciled in New York. Because of temporary unemployment, plaintiff took his wife and minor child to Connecticut. He later returned to New York and resided in the apartment the family had formerly occupied. The wife and child did not return to New York, and the court found that she had at all times intended to remain in Connecticut and establish a domicile there. Plaintiff at all times intended to make New York his permanent residence. When defendant would not return to New York, plaintiff brought action for separation in a New York court, …