Top Three Parent-Child Reunification Programs After Alienation

I am often called upon to fight for parents who have been alienated from the natural affections of their children by the other parent.  However, achieving court orders designed to end devastating patterns of parental alienation are only the beginning.  Although establishing or enforcing the right to access and possession of the children, to orders of counseling, and injunctions against a parent’s alienating behavior are necessary, they are not sufficient to getting the children and the alienated parent to interact in healthy, normal ways.  The psychological healing that must take place after the gavel falls is where the real hard work lies.  An attorney who deals in high conflict cases must understand and appreciate that they need to work in partnership with mental health professionals to completely resolve their client’s problems.  And in this sensitive area, the mental health prover must be have specialized expertise in parental alienation reunification.

Mental health professionals should be screened carefully.  The client should familiarize themselves with the professionals understanding of the various parental alienation treatment models that have developed over the last several years.  Here then, are three of the most prevalent family reunification intervention models:

1.       Warshak’s Family Bridges Model.

Perhaps the best- known of the emerging models, this program is an educative and experiential program focusing on multiple goals:  allowing the child to have a healthy relationship with both parents, removing the child from parental conflict, and encouraging child autonomy, multiple perspective-taking, and critical thinking.[1]

2.      Sullivan’s Overcoming Barriers Family Camp

This model combines psycho-educational and clinical intervention with an environment of milieu therapy.  It is aimed toward the development of an agreement regarding the sharing of parenting time, and a written aftercare planning.  It is this author’s opinion that this model is best utilized if a custody lawsuit is still pending, such as if temporary but not final orders are in place.  Because it’s need for both parents to be cooperative with making agreements, this model will not work well if the communication skills of the parents are below a certain minimum.[2]

3.      Friedlander and Walters’ Multimodal Family Intervention

The flexibility and adaptability of this model makes it a good choice for families in radical transition such as those who are currently involved with high conflict litigation.  This model provides differential interventions for situations of parental alignment, alienation, enmeshment and estrangement.[3]

Children and parents who have undergone forced separation are highly subject to post-traumatic distress and mental health professionals are absolutely essential to resuming a healthy relationship.  Research has shown that many alienated children can transform quickly from resisting the rejected parent to being able to receive and show love for that parent.  But to achieve that goal, the high conflict family law attorney and the alienated client must be clear on their goals during and after the custody case.  They must work together to select a mental health provider who not only has specialized expertise in parental alienation reunification, but offers a therapy model that is best suited to the individual needs of each family.

If you have any questions about your high conflict family law case, including parental alienation and family reunification issues, please visit us at www.thepalmerlawfirm.com. 

---

[1] Baker, A. (2010).  “Adult recall of parental alienation in a community sample: Prevelance and association with psychological maltreatment.” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 51, 16-35.

[2] Sullivan, M.J. Et al (2010). “Overcoming Barriers Family Camp.” Family Court Review, 48 (1), 116-135.

[3] Friedlander, S. & Walters, M.G. (2010). “When a child rejects a parent: Tailoring the intervention to fit the problem.” Family Court Review, 48 (1), 98-111.

Taping Phone Calls, Recording Conversations and Taking Videos In Texas

One of the most pervasive questions I get is whether a party can record conversations either in person or on the phone.  Here is a short breakdown of applicable laws and cases in Texas.

The General Rule:
No matter the form of communication, the general rule is - assuming you aren't doing it for an illegal reason (harassment, etc.) if you are recording a communication between yourself and another person, you may be alright in recording it.  But if you secretly record a conversation between two other people you may get in big trouble. But are many exceptions and precautions to this general rule, so you must read on!

Summary of statute(s): An individual who is a party to either an in-person conversation or electronic communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication, can lawfully record it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. A person also can lawfully record electronic communications that are readily accessible to the general public. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.02 (Vernon 2011).

In-person conversations: The consent of at least one party to a conversation is required to record an “oral communication,” which is defined as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18.20. Thus, an ex-wife can record a conversation with her ex-husband at a Starbucks because she does not need consent to record conversations in public where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  However f she records the same conversation in the privacy of the home, where privacy is usually expected, then she should get the ex-spouses permission before recording or she may be breaking the law.

Electronic communications: Things can get VERY SERIOUS when recording electronic communications because Federal Wiretapping Laws may come into play.

The consent of at least one party to any telephone communication is required to record it. And because the provision of the statute dealing with wireless communications applies to “a transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature,” consent likewise is required to disclose the contents of text messages sent between wireless devices. Id.

Hidden cameras: It is a felony to photograph or record a person without the person’s consent in a public place “with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,” or in a bathroom or private dressing room “with the intent to invade the privacy of the person, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,” and to disclose any images obtained by these means. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.15.

 The law, however, does not criminalize the use of recording devices for other purposes in areas to which the public has access or there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (i.e., filming conversations on public streets or a hotel lobby). The state’s highest court for criminal cases recently held that the statutory prohibition on photographing or videotaping a person in public without that person’s consent with the intent to arouse or gratify a sexual desire did not implicate, much less violate, a defendant’s free-speech rights because the statute was not a regulation of speech or the contents of a visual image but rather a regulation of the photographer’s or videographer’s intent in creating the image. Ex parte Nyabwa, 366 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

Criminal penalties: Illegally recording an in-person conversation or electronic communication is a felony offense. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.02.

Civil suits: Anyone whose wire, oral or electronic communication has been recorded or disclosed in violation of the law can bring a civil suit to recover $10,000 for each occurrence, actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and court costs. Under the statute, an aggrieved person also is entitled to an injunction prohibiting further unlawful interception or disclosure. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 123.004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held in 2000 that a television station and reporter who obtained illegally recorded tapes of telephone conversations, but who had not participated in the illegal recording, could nonetheless be held civilly liable under the federal and Texas wiretap statutes. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000). The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, along with two other cases raising similar issues. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case but decided in one of the other cases, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), that media defendants could not be held liable for publishing information of public concern that was obtained unlawfully by a source where the media were blameless in the illegal interception. Following the Bartnicki decision, the parties in the Peavy case settled out of court.

Disclosing recordings: Not only can you get in serious trouble for illegally recording a communication, if you then show the illegal recordings to anyone, you may be breaking additional laws. Trying to get your attorney to listen to, watch or hold on to such illegal recordings counts.  And then if your attorney tries to use illegal recordings in court, you BOTH can be violating the law.

Disclosing the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication obtained through illegal recording is a felony. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.02

The bottom line
The bottom line is that if you plan to record conversations without informing everyone that you are recording them, then make sure you follow these guidelines:

1.  There are no circumstances when you can record a person for an illegal purpose such as to harass them or for sexual gratification.
2.  At least one party to the conversations needs to be aware they are being recorded;
3.  Do not record someone when they should reasonably expect privacy (such as in their home);
4.  If you have an illegal recording in your possession, do not try to show it to anyone.

It is best to consult with a lawyer before attempting to do any sort of fact gathering on your case.

 If you have any further questions about taping phone calls, recording conversations or taking videos in relation to your family law case in Texas, please visit our website at www.thepalmerlawfirm.com.