Abstract
The reluctance of courts to provide a tortious remedy for PA is not supported by the recognition of the fundamental rights of parents to be involved in the upbringing of their children. The courts should keep in mind that within the definition of the family comes not only the State’s obligation to do what is in the best interests of the child, but also what is in the best interests of the family. The relationship between children and their parents is beneficial not only to the child at the center of the alienation controversy, but also to each parent, who gains independently from the close and abiding love and affection of a child. Therefore, when the formerly close bond between a child and a parent is irreparably harmed due to the interference of the other parent, the damage can be devastating to both the child and the rejected parent, with ramifications to the child extending into adulthood. The formative years of a child are limited, and each parent has the right to share the wonder of discovery and the journey of exploration with their children. Where those years are squandered due to unnecessary alignment, courts should be ready and willing to extract swift and just compensation from the alienating parent, in order to: (1) support and further the rights of all parents to raise their children as they see fit; (2) deter other parents from espousing such emotional, violent, and abusive responses to the stresses of divorce, remarriage and custody disputes; and (3) provide compensation for what proves to be a very expensive road to healing therapy and legal drama for the parent who will not give up on their children, regardless of the actions of the other parent.
Recommended Citation
Beverly, Bruce L.
(2013)
"A Remedy to Fit the Crime: A Call for the Recognition of the Unreasonable Rejection of a Parent by a Child as Tortious Conduct,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2013:
No.
4, Article 6.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2013/iss4/6