In some cases, the court’s inability to clearly determine the cause for the breakdown of the parent-child relationship played a significant role in its decision to decline making the therapeutic order. That is because the therapy proposed was specifically aimed at addressing a particular diagnosis which had not yet been made. For instance, in Barrett v. Huver, the father was alleging that the mother was severely alienating the child, and was proposing the Families Moving Forward program as the cure for such alienation (although it appears that the program can address a much wider variety of child-resisting-contact situations). At paragraph 17, the court stated that it was impossible to determine on the “competing, contradictory affidavits, untested by cross-examination, and in the absence of any expert evidence, the reason or reasons for the fractured relationship between the father and the children.”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.