AFC is attorney for the child….A quick review of psychiatric studies shows that there is a general consensus that parental alienation results in many long-term, negative consequences for a child. Depression, anxiety, poor self-esteem, lack of trust in relationships, and self-defeating behavior are just some of the deleterious consequences. And one can argue, that is a serious harm to the child.
Thompson v. Thompson, — A.D.3d —, — N.Y.S.3d — (Fourth Dept. 2023)(2023 WL 3160145)(Apr 28, 2023):
“We also reject the mother’s contention that the AFC improperly
substituted her judgment for that of the children. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR
7.2 (d), an attorney for the child must zealously advocate the child’s
position. However, an attorney for the child is entitled to advocate a
position that is contrary to a child’s wishes when the attorney is
convinced … that following the child’s wishes is likely to result in a
substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the child (22 NYCRR 7.2
[d] [3]). In circumstances when an attorney for the child advocates for a
position that is contrary to the child’s wishes, the attorney is still
required to inform the court of the child’s articulated wishes if the
child wants the attorney to do so, notwithstanding the attorney’s
position (22 NYCRR 7.2 [d] [3]). Here, the children’s wishes were made
known to the court during the Lincoln hearing. Further, although the AFC
substituted her judgment for that of the children, she was entitled to
do so because the record establishes that the mother engaged in a
pattern of alienating the children from the father, which was likely to
result in a substantial risk of imminent, serious harm to the children
(see Matter of Vega v. Delgado, 195 A.D.3d 1555, 1556, 145 N.Y.S.3d 907 [4th Dept. 2021]; Matter of Grabowski v.
Smith, 182 A.D.3d 1002, 1004, 123 N.Y.S.3d 313 [4th Dept. 2020], lv
denied 35 N.Y.3d 910, 2020 WL 5047587 [2020]; Matter of Viscuso v. Viscuso, 129 A.D.3d 1679, 1680-1681, 12 N.Y.S.3d 684 [4th Dept. 2015]).”