False accusations and Parental Alienation are terrible acts and all states should have a significant civil
remedy for it. The article below discusses a New Jersey case where apparently that is going to
happen.
From Henry Gottlieb's "Exes can sue over ruined ties to couple's children"
For the first time in New Jersey, a judge has recognized the right of parents to collect
damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress when their relationships with their
children are poisoned by former spouses.
Superior Court Judge Maurice Gallipoli ruled on Nov. 21 that a man can sue his ex-wife
and her parents for allegedly turning his children against him by making false accusations
that he had committed sexual misconduct.
The central legal issue in the Hudson County case was whether the emotional distress
claim was a disguised complaint for alienation of affections, a cause of action New Jersey
abolished in 1935.
By then, America no longer believed cuckolded husbands deserved damages from their
wives' lovers or that the father of the bride should be able to sue the scoundrel who jilted
his daughter.
As recently as two months ago, defendants have invoked the law that abolished such actions
— the Heart Balm Act — to win summary dismissal of tort claims alleging that
parents and their children had been alienated by ex-spouses or other individuals.
But Gallipoli said an emotional distress claim is separate and distinct from the abolished
claim of alienation of affection. "Here, plaintiff is alleging that defendants' alienating
conduct has caused him emotional distress," he wrote in Smith v. Smith, Hud-L-1837-08.
"Thus emotional distress, not alienation of affections, is the predicate cause of action."
The decision creates the potential for a showdown in the Appellate Division...
Vincent and Rose Marie Smith were divorced in 2007 and though their two children live
primarily with her in Guilford, Conn., he is entitled to parenting time at his home in
Hoboken.
The damage suit alleges that the ex-wife and her parents, Daniel and Barbara Marese,
began alienating the children from the father during the predivorce separation in 2006.
The defendants falsely told the children, court-appointed psychiatrists and law
enforcement officials that the father was a sex addict and had molested the children in the
past, the suit says.
And it says the children are afraid to sleep at their father's house because they have been
told they are in danger of being sexually abused.
The wife and her parents denied the allegations and argued in motions to dismiss the suit
for failure to state a claim that the Heart Balm Act had eliminated the cause of action.
Indeed, they pointed out, the term "alienating the children" is what the complaint calls the
alleged wrong.
The defense supported its motion by citing three rulings in which courts had relied on the
Heart Balm Act to throw out damage claims involving children.
Gallipoli brushed aside two of the precedents as irrelevant from a factual or legal
standpoint. The third, Rand's decision in Segal, was on point but wrong, Gallipoli said.
In dismissing the father's claim in Segal, Rand wrote, "To sustain a claim for such
damages would result in a revival of evils not unlike those banned in 1935 and would be
an exceptionally ineffective technique for resolving matrimonial differences or custody
disputes."
In recognition of the family court's role, Gallipoli ruled that if Smith wants to seek
damages from his ex-wife he must do it in a post-judgment proceeding in family court. It
would still be a damage claim and the family court has the power to arrange jury trials.
Because the grandparents were not parties to the divorce action, the case against them can
continue in the civil court, the judge ruled.
Plaintiff's lawyer Resnick says suits like his have been rare because parents and their
lawyers have been content to fight for equitable relief in custody battles.
"They feel the ultimate sanction of a transfer of custody is enough," he says.
"But it's not enough because they still do it," he says of parents who make false
accusations to get the edge in custody battles. "They are never afraid of losing custody, so
the only other thing to do is hit them in the pocketbook or the wallet."
What do you think? Is PA over money? Is the custody fight over money? If not, is it just evil Evil?
Why do the courts award money as a reward?
If the parent loves and wants custody, why do they need paid more than an adoptive parent would receive?
So, it is about money. Money for the parent conducting PA and money for the attorney aiding in the process.
Anyone see where the children’s welfare is really addressed?
Anyone see where time and money was spent investigating the best environment for the children?
Does anyone care about anything but money in family court???
The system is just broken and the kids are the ones who suffer and whose future is changed forever…based on ones fight for money…
..................
