Lawyers
From Contact Denial to Parental Alienation: Navigating Family Disputes
It is possible for hostility to arise both at the beginning of the divorce process and during the proceedings as a result of the children’s behavior, the lack of desire to speak to one of the parents, impolite and distant speech, disrespectful treatment, and the inability to meet and sometimes even stay in the same room as the other party. In the case of similar feelings and experiences, it’s important to find out if it’s parental alienation or, alternatively, refusal of contact, since the difference between the two can affect the legal procedure you’ll need to take.
By Igal Mor, Adv. & Notary
Accuracy in Legal Advice. Excellence in legal support.
Is it parental alienation or contact refusal?
Parental alienation refers to the deliberate distancing of the children (all or some) from one of the parents, without justifiable reason, during the divorce proceedings between the parents. These expressions can include a cold, indifferent response or an active rejection by the parent of any effort to renew the relationship, such as cursing, disrespectful speech, and at an older age, cynicism and extroverted contempt. This is a difficult and painful experience. It may have long-term consequences for the relationship between parents and children as well as for the children themselves.
Parental alienation is often caused by the incitement (sometimes conscious and sometimes unconscious) of the first parent against the second parent. For example, a parent who has left a relationship that burdened him and is now motivated to find a new relationship and establish his own home separately may be perceived as a parent who has abandoned his family unit and is only concerned with himself. In the event that the children remain with the stay-at-home parent, and see him fade away or become depressed due to the separation, the relationship is strengthened. Consequently, any attempt on the part of the parent who sees the separation as a positive and liberating experience is viewed as a betrayal of the parent who sees it as a terrible experience, and if it is the parent who shares their difficult feelings because of his loneliness, or who seems unmotivated and hurt, automatically the children tend to be in his favor to the point of alienation.
Contact refusal is not a synonym for parental alienation, but is one of its characteristics. In parental alienation, one of the things that stands out is a lack of desire to meet, but parental alienation also involves actions on the part of the other parent who encourages his children not to meet with the alienated parent. This was stated among other things by the Supreme Court in the case REA 3009/02 Pelonit v. Peloni, PD No. (4) 872: “The increase in divorce rates coupled with the fact that more and more fathers are fighting for custody and visitation arrangements of their children, As a result, they have exposed the phenomenon of parental alienation. This syndrome is characterized, among other things, by the child’s refusal to communicate with one parent. Accordingly, the term “refusal of contact” is often used as a synonym for parental alienation, even though the former is only one of its characteristics (paragraph 8 of Judge Grunis’ judgment).
The term “refusal contact” is not merely a phenomenon or symptom associated with parental alienation, but instead describes the distance of the children from one of their parents for reasons that actually exist, i.e., they are justified, when the child refuses contact for a good reason based on realistic perceptions. Among other things distance from one of the parents may be defined as refusal of contact when situations of trauma occur, such as abuse, sexual abuse, physical, verbal, or financial violence, and the like.
It is also important to know that in both cases of parental alienation and refusal of contact, the court will make its decision based upon objective evidence, rather than based upon feelings and inclinations. Thus, it is very important to document as much as possible the communication between the parents and the children, as well as between the parents themselves, in order to demonstrate parental alienation or refusal of contact. It is important and recommended that you consult with a family lawyer or a divorce lawyer about this individually in order to ensure that you will be able to prove your claims in court. In the case of Ltd. 9400/11 so-and-so v. so-and-so (Nevo 02.01.2012), we can observe how rulings are made and the strength of the decision. Consequently, the father’s appeal to reduce the alimony payment due to his children’s distance from him was rejected due to the mother’s correct use of objective evidence: It is necessary to reject this request even on its merits, since the Family Court has determined that the refusal to have contact is based on factual findings established by hearing from witnesses. Due to this, the district court refused to intervene. “The trial court has an advantage in establishing factual findings when these are based on an immediate impression formed by the witnesses who appear before it.” (paragraph 8 of the judgment of the Honorable Judge Y. Danziger).
It is important that all estranged parents understand the dangers of using weapons of incitement and alienation. A parent cannot harness and use his children as a tool or a means to strike the other party or to achieve revenge and "punishment" just as the divorce cannot be manipulated as a tool or a means to achieve property or other achievements within the framework of a divorce fight. It is important for parents to be aware that if it is proven that they maliciously incited the minor against the other parent, they will pay a heavy price."
When is refusal of contact legitimate?
Many times, when it comes to refusal of contact, the minor’s right to avoid contact with a parent overrides the parent’s right to contact the minor. It is important to emphasize that contact refusal differs from parental alienation in that the child or children who wish to sever contact with one parent do so for a valid reason, and their behavior is accepted as legitimate by the court.
Moreover, there are those who believe that refusal of contact may not only result from a traumatic experience, but also from impaired or abusive functioning on the part of the parent. In defining significant distance in a parent’s relationship with his children as a refusal of contact rather than parental alienation, the primary emphasis is placed on the fact that the cause of the distance lies in the relationship between the parent who suffers from distance from the children themselves. This would differ from the situation where the distance is mainly caused by the instigation of the parent with whom the children are in contact, which is often referred to as parental alienation by the court.
The Supreme Court's presiding procedure for non-cooperation cases
Generally 1. The right of a child to bond with both parents is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is in accordance with the supreme principle of the child's best interests. In court rulings, the right has long been recognized as providing a legal defense and remedy. The child is also entitled to protection in the relationship if one of the parents fears harming him or if he witnesses violence between the parents. It is important that the time dimension plays a decisive role in dealing with and effectively intervening in problems in the relationship between parents and their minor children in any case of damage to the relationship between parents and their children. In view of this, legal proceedings involving potential damage to the relationship between parents and their children due to a family conflict, as well as procedures that threaten the protection of children, require an immediate, efficient, and quick response from the family courts, while also taking the best interests of the children into consideration. A rapid identification and diagnosis of the damage to the relationship, along with temporary relief, can prevent the worsening of the damage or the fixation of disconnection and refusal to contact on the one hand, while protecting and securing the child on the other hand.
The Honorable Judge Esther Hayut, the President of the Supreme Court, published a procedure on October 8, 2020 20 – 2 “Court handling of family matters involving urgent proceedings that involve ensuring contact between parents and their children or the fear of harming their welfare.This procedure was published as a temporary order and, as of today, it will be valid until April 25, 2023, so it may not yet possess a final configuration, but it will teach us something about the expected trend in future rulings, and the fact that its validity has been extended again demonstrates satisfaction with it.
This procedure is designed to provide a quick response to disputes related to parenting, and it is justified by the rationale that such conflicts require a prompt response, but one that is not excessive. According to its opening words: “Legal proceedings involving a family conflict that could damage the relationship between parents and children, as well as procedures that could compromise the protection of children, require an initial response.” A quick and efficient family court system that considers the child’s best interests. By detecting and diagnosing the damage to the relationship in the early stages and providing temporary relief, you can and will help prevent the worsening of the damage to the relationship or a fixation of disconnection and refusal to continue the relationship. This will ensure protection and security for the child in the event of difficulties between a parent and a child as a result of injury to the parent.”
The main procedure is based on three sections:
There is a regulated procedure in Section 5 entitled “Determining a hearing on the request for urgent relief to ensure contact and giving a decision on the request to shorten the period of delay of the proceedings”, which states that, under conditions that do not tolerate delay, the court will hold a hearing on the status of the parties within 14 days after receipt of the request.
According to section 6, a court will give its decision within 14 days as a part of dispute resolution procedures, upon a request or recommendation by an aid unit to shorten the period of time.
Moreover, Section 7 outlines the procedure for scheduling a hearing upon a request for temporary relief to ensure contact or to prevent harm to the child’s protection, and states that a hearing will be held within 14 days of submitting the request in order to determine the status of the parties.
The procedure is not only intended for cases of parental alienation, but for complex cases in which the safety and health of the children might be compromised, and on the other hand, for cases in which there is no fear of violence or alienation. Thus, the procedure has the potential to ensure a good relationship between parents and their children in general. Additionally, it is relevant in cases where there is no sequence in the periods of stay and a court decision is not required.
In Conclusion
Considering the significance of the difference, it is very important to consult professionals with expertise in the field of divorce and family law. This is to ensure that the divorce process is conducted smoothly from the planning stage to the legal defense in court and the management of any legal battle pertaining to alimony payments.
Adv. Mor & Co.’s family law department has extensive experience handling cases involving refusal of contact and parental alienation. In family cases, we focus on sensitivity and personal accompaniment while adhering to professional values. This is to achieve both the desired outcome and the most suitable procedure in terms of child relations.
In Conclusion
A lawyer can provide legal assistance regarding refusals of contact or parental alienation
Very difficult is the life of a parent experiencing parental contact refusal or alienation.
If you are experiencing parental alienation or are already stuck in a situation of parental alienation or refusal of contact, we strongly recommend consulting with a family law attorney. This will enable you to explore your legal options.
Mor & Co.’s family law department has extensive experience handling refusal of contact and parental alienation. As a family law firm, we pride ourselves on our commitment to sensitivity and personal accompaniment while adhering to the highest standards of legal professionalism.
With years of experience in handling contact refusal and parental alienation cases, we will strive to do our best and make our experience available to you, while protecting your interests and achieving the desired outcome in terms of the relationship with the children.
For legal advice (without obligation) on refusal of contact / parental alienation, please contact us by phone at 02-595-3322 or by WhatsApp at 050-811-6181.
