Slam the Gavel
Slam the Gavel
Attorney Ashish S. Joshi discusses Parental Alienation in the courtroom, how to prove Parental Alienation and his new book, Litigating Parental Alienation
Attorney Ashish Joshi is the owner and managing partner of Joshi: Attorneys and Counselors. He specializes in litigating cases involving Parental Alienation, child enmeshment and child abuse. He has counseled and/or represented clients in state and federal courts across the United States and internationally, including in India, United Kingdom, Canada, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, British Virgin Islands, Japan and China. Attorney Joshi has been admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, state bars of New York, Michigan, the District of Columbia and Gujarat, India. Attorney Joshi is also the author of his forthcoming book, "Litigating Parental Alienation."
How to reach Attorney Joshi: www.joshiattorneys.com
http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/
Producer/ Music provided by: Richard Provost at mictechmusic@yahoo.com
Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)
http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/
Good afternoon and welcome to Slam the Gavel. I have a guest, Ashish Joshi, is the owner and managing partner of Joshi Attorneys and Counselors. He specializes in litigating cases involving parental alienation, child enmeshment, and child abuse. He has counseled and or represented clients in state and federal courts across the United States and internationally, including India, United Kingdom, Canada, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, British Virgin Islands, Japan, and China. Attorney Joshi has been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, state bars of New York, Michigan, the District of Columbia, and Gujarat, India. Mr. Joshi is the author of the forthcoming book, Litigating Parental Alienation. Good afternoon, Attorney Joshi. How are you doing?
SPEAKER_00:Good afternoon, Mary and pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
SPEAKER_01:Well, it's great to have you on. We're going to talk about parental alienation and your book that is going to be coming out soon.
SPEAKER_00:Yes. I'm expecting the book to come out early 2021, sometime before spring. And it's meant for lawyers primarily, helping them to litigate and adjudicate uh for adjudication for the judges as well, but mainly how to handle a case involving parental alienation in family courts. They also have uh chapters that pertain to guardians at Lytum or lawyers who function as minor children's uh minor children's counsel and for referees and court-appointed professionals such as therapists.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, yeah, that's uh very anticipated book to come out for lawyers to read and um acknowledge. Do you think lawyers acknowledge parental alienation in the courts?
SPEAKER_00:On a whole, yes. Uh so let me take a step back. One of the interesting things about my practice is that it's based uh across the country. And from time to time, I'm also a part of the legal team uh in foreign jurisdictions. For example, last year I was a part of the legal team in a case before the European Court of Human Rights that arose from Luxembourg involving parental alienation. But if we talk about the courts in America, I've been in so many different jurisdictions, ranging from California to Michigan, uh, New York, Florida, Hawaii, elsewhere. By and large, the concept of parental alienation is known and acknowledged. And we need to remember that this is not a new or a novel phenomenon or a concept. We have cases going back 200 years from English courts and American courts that have described the process or process of alienation, that have acknowledged the concept of alienation. They may not have used the exact terminology with which we are familiar today. For example, they might not have used the term parental alienation syndrome or even parental alienation as such. But the concept is by no means a novel or new concept. So, yes, the judges and the lawyers and the court-appointed professionals do understand that a parent or even a third party could alienate a child based upon their behaviors. And because of those behaviors, a child could be alienated from a parent, or the child's relationship with the parent could be severely and negatively impacted. So the concept is pretty much understood. Where we run into issues is how that concept is put into practice and what the judges do or more often fail to do in these cases involving parental alienation.
SPEAKER_01:Is it very difficult to prove parental alienation in court? Do they give you a hard time?
SPEAKER_00:No, I don't think so. Uh, I think the problem is uh rather at the opposite end of the spectrum. In my opinion, the problem lies in the lawyers not trying to prove a case of parental alienation, but rather filing motions after motions, seeking some sort of relief from the court without putting the evidence on. At the end of the day, a court needs solid evidence, good evidence, before they can make changes to the custodial environment. Before modifying a parent's parenting time or changing custody or modifying custody, most jurisdictions require courts to hold an evidentiary hearing. It's one thing when you simply file a motion alleging alienation or just throwing out those labels in court filings. It's altogether another matter to present evidence at an evidentiary hearing or a trial. And that's where many courts get frustrated and the lawsuits get derailed or the proceedings get derailed because the motions are filed complaining about this or that behavior, and asking for relief that is not helpful. For example, asking that because a parent has violated a couple of orders of parenting time or is somehow not following the court orders, all of a sudden is a case of parental alienation. And you ask that so-and-so needs to go to therapy, I need cost and attorney fees, he or she needs to be thrown in jail, sanctions and whatnot. And often these emotions don't go anywhere because uh most judges don't like adversary proceedings in family court. They expect the lawyers to come to the table with an agreement in place. They want the lawyers for the parties to try to work out settlements, they appoint uh other professionals on the case, such as guardians at Lytum, to help the parties bring to an agreement and all of that, which is all great in cases not involving alienation because you don't have those pathological behaviors, you don't have underlying mental health issues. But in case of alienation, that only makes a bad case far worse. Because all you are doing is to kick the can down the road, so to speak, and avoid making findings. Findings which are absolutely necessary for a court to provide the right intervention. And uh on the other hand, we have also seen in the past uh several years a dramatic increase of the use of the term parental alienation. So the court filings that are being made in the country now frequently include this term, and sometimes the term is uh used inappropriately, sometimes it's used when it's not the case. Uh, what experts call the issue of false positive. And many a times when the issue is simply one party acting in an inappropriate manner or just being a jerk, refusing to follow court orders or acting in a really unhelpful manner, immediately the label is thrown uh of parental alienation, and that's not helpful.
SPEAKER_01:So, like you have to provide like expert testimony to prove this parental alienation so you can nail this down more often than not, yes.
SPEAKER_00:But it's not absolutely necessary. There was an interesting case that came out of Ontario, Canada, uh some last year, I believe, where a trial judge uh ruled that it's not, I'm sorry, but the Court of Appeals, I believe, in Ontario ruled that it's not necessary for a trial judge to have expert testimony in front of him in order to make a finding of parental alienation. In other words, a trial judge could look at the evidence in front of him or her, and if the judge finds evidence of alienating behaviors, behaviors that have been shown to alienate a child from the other parent, behaviors that have been demonstrated to negatively impact the child's relationship with the other parent, behaviors that have been demonstrated to negatively impact the child's cognitive functioning, emotional well-being, or otherwise just harmful to the child and the relationship with the other parent. If those behaviors are present, a trial judge could make a finding of alienation and could provide their necessary relief. You don't have to have a particular label. At the end of the day, family court judges have to make decisions in the best interest of a child. We see judges making decisions about modifying parenting time, modifying custody, entering orders of protection in cases involving, let's say, alcohol abuse, emotional abuse, physical abuse, certainly sexual abuse, and all sorts of other things. This is no different. The fact that a parent is engaging in these behaviors which have been shown to significantly damage a child's well-being, you don't need an expert to come and tell the judge that it's harmful to the child. Judges can take that notice, they can accept that evidence, and they can and should make decisions to protect the child.
SPEAKER_01:Do you find some judges? What do you do if a judge is in denial or they don't want to acknowledge it?
SPEAKER_00:Well, it's uh it's a tough call, it's a tough situation, and it uh lawyers love to say it depends. And I'm gonna call back on that. It depends upon the case and it depends upon the circumstances. Frankly, in my experience of litigating these cases around the country, I have never come across a judge who has said to me that not only I refuse to believe in the concept of parental alienation, I'm not gonna let you, I'm not gonna give you an opportunity to present your evidence on alienation in my court. It never happens. What usually happens is that by the time I enter into a case, let's say someone in Georgia wants to retain me about a case that is going nowhere, and the client has been told by their lawyers in Georgia that so-and-so judge is not a believer in alienation, or so-and-so judge is never gonna accept the theory of alienation, and you are not gonna win, you're not gonna go anywhere. So don't even mention the term. And when I come into the case, uh I find that that's not the case. That's simply an assumption of the lawyer in Georgia, that's simply a fallacy that has no basis in reality. The judge in question has not, in fact, issued any opinions or written any opinions that have challenged the concept of alienation. But it's just the same old thinking that let's try to settle this, let's try to be reasonable. If we go and ask for a trial, if we go and uh ask for relief in terms of attorney fees, sanctions, change of custody, specialized alienation prevention programs, we will come across as unreasonable people. We will be seen as overly aggressive, and that's just wrong thinking. So I don't subscribe to the theory that courts don't accept the concept of alienation. Yes, you will find decisions where the term parental alienation syndrome has been called into question, where some judges have ruled that, well, the theory of parental alienation syndrome appears to be controversial, and uh it's doubtful whether there is sufficient scientific support uh underlying this theory. You you will find those decisions, but more and more courts are staying away from that controversy. For example, in early this year in 2020, Michigan Court of Appeals came out with a published decision, and it's rare for Court of Appeals to publish a decision, it's not common, so it's all the more important. This was a published decision, which means that it has precedential value. You can cite it as a precedent, and in that case, the Court of Appeals acknowledged the concept of parental alienation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's modification of custody, modification of parenting time, and other sanctions that the trial court had put in place to contain the behaviors of the alienating parent. And the court went forward and in fact also ruled that we don't really care about the controversies surrounding the label or term parental alienation syndrome. There could be controversy, there could be debates about it, but end of the day, there is no debate or no controversy about the behaviors in question. We have sufficient empirical evidence and science that demonstrate that these behaviors, if they are present, do constitute harm to the child and the relationship between the child and the other parent. So the case law is clear that those behaviors, if they are present, need to be addressed. Labels don't really matter. And that's true in most jurisdictions. I can't think of a single jurisdiction where a family court judge has said that not only I refuse to accept the concept of alienation, I'm also going to refuse to acknowledge any of these behaviors, even if they are present. I think the trouble is that even in this day and age, there is so much misinformation and uh false propaganda regarding parental alienation out there that most family law practitioners are simply overwhelmed by the amount of data and information that is required to understand and master if you're gonna present these cases in a court of law.
SPEAKER_01:What do you do if a target parent has had a setback in court, like time suspended due to false accusations, allegations? Is it possible to reverse that scenario or to overcome that negative perception by the court? And because I know these parents want to get custody back and prove the parental alienation.
SPEAKER_00:Yes, I think it is possible. Let's uh let me give you a common scenario that happens in these cases. You find that the alienating parent, having brainwashed and indoctrinated the children, takes them to a therapy visit. The children go to a therapist or a school counselor and talk about quote-unquote abuse from the targeted parent. They make all these complaints which have no basis in reality and are only a result of alienation. The therapist, without doing any critical thinking, without doing any investigation or checking with the other parent or trying to find out if the child's complaints are reasonable and not a product of distortions or faulty perception, crosses the boundary and writes a letter or an email to the court or to the alienating parent that is used thereafter to file an expert emotion with the court. An expert emotion is where you go to the court and ask for relief, and the other party is not given an opportunity to rebut your allegations or to present the other side of the story. And the alienating parent goes to the court and files a motion and tells a judge unless you suspend the parenting time of the other parent who is a targeted parent, this child is going to come to a severe harm. And here's a letter written by the therapist, or here's a letter written by the school counselor, and so and so. And judges, simply to err on the side of caution, will or may temporarily suspend the parenting time. And that's the important point of inflection in these cases. And how you respond to that point in point of inflection governs the rest of the case. What should happen is that the targeted parent should immediately file an objection to that expart order and immediately ask for an evidentiary hearing where the targeted parent's lawyer can cross-examine that incompetent therapist who crossed the boundaries and wrote that idiotic letter, which was used to suspend the time of the targeted parent. The lawyer should have conducted robust deposition of the therapist, subpoenaed the court records, I mean, sorry, subpoenaed the therapeutic records, the therapy notes files, and got to the bottom of the whole mystery and demonstrate to the court that this ex parte shenanigan that was pulled on the court was actually a fraud on the court, and that's a part of the alienating strategy. Unfortunately, what happens in most scenarios is that once that ex parte order of suspension is in place, the lawyer for the targeted parent often advises the parent to let go or to be appeared or to appear reasonable, agree to some sort of a cooling off period, agree to not enforce the parenting time or not enforce the rights, and they agree to go to joint counseling and therapy. And that's a mistake because now if you have a negative finding made against you, you are going to go to joint counseling and therapy, which is never going to work, which is in fact disastrous in the cases of parental alienation, because a therapist is trained and required to validate the child's feelings or behaviors or opinions. And the child will obviously and always have excuses. An alienated child or a child subjected to alienation is never going to realize that my complaints about the targeted parent are not based in reality. It's all a product of brainwashing and the alienating behaviors that the other parent engages in. The therapist sees the child once or twice a week, sometimes together with the targeted parent. The child keeps on repeating the same complaints. Mom is mean, mom yells at me, mom doesn't care about me, mom drinks too much, or whatever the complaint is. If the complaints have no basis in reality and absolutely false, the targeted parent is trying to going to argue with the child, is going to try to present her side of the story, and the therapist is going to say, No. This is not the time to contradict the child. This is not the time for you to argue back. This is the time to show empathy. This is the time to validate the child's feelings. Look at the tears. Look at the anguish. Look at the acknowledge the feelings. And you never get out of that loop. It's a vicious cycle. Months and months and months go by, and there is no progress. You are lost out on parenting time. The child gets further entrenched in alienation, and a bad case becomes far worse. And remember, all this time, everyone's billing. You have lawyers billing on both sides. You have the therapist billing for the sessions. If you have a minor's counsel appointed, that lawyer is going to bill for representing the child. If there's a guardian at lightum, he or she is going to bill for her time. And people run out of money. It's a vicious cycle. I strongly believe that if a targeted parent is unfairly attacked in the court and there is a negative order put in place and some sort of a setback that you have in court, the sooner you are able to get to a trial, the sooner you are able to get to an evidentiary hearing, the better for you. Because even if you don't, uh even if you're not able to win outright, and I don't like to use the term win or lose in this situation because nobody wins at the end of the day in family courts, but even if you're not able to convince the judge that you are a victim of parental alienation, you will make some dent in the judge's perception of the alienating parent. You will make a case that the expat order or the setback there was that happened needs to be looked at from a different perspective. You will be able to present some evidence, not just theories or allegations. And I think it's important to take that opportunity.
SPEAKER_01:Yes. Some people give up hope and they think their case is closed. What do you think of that?
SPEAKER_00:Well, can you explain to me what do you mean by closed case? Because uh closed case has a very different uh meaning in forensic.
SPEAKER_01:They think their case is like over with. It's closed, the judge closed it, maybe.
SPEAKER_00:Well, in in the family law arena, as long as the children are minor, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the family courts. If the kids are adults, if they have been emancipated, then the court doesn't have custody on the minor children's parenting time and custodial issues. But as long as the children remain minor, you can always go back to court for modification of custody or parenting time, agreements or court decisions. Most jurisdictions require one of the two things, sometimes uh both. They either require the moving party to show proper cause that there exists proper cause for the court to revisit the issue of custody or parenting time, or they need to show a change of circumstances, that something has changed. Uh, it could be uh the child uh has been admitted to a hospital, the child's grades are dramatically falling in school, uh, there was some kind of a police intervention, mental health intervention, or sometimes a fact that there has simply been no contact. Despite there being an order for parenting time, despite there being an order for therapeutic uh intervention, there simply has been no contact, and the parent has been completely cut out from the child's life and vice versa. So you can go back to court and ask the court to take a look at the case again based upon new evidence or change of circumstances or proper cause.
SPEAKER_01:Well, that sounds good. Um is it true that the decision in a case is predetermined on whether what judge is assigned to that case?
SPEAKER_00:Hmm. That's a hard question to answer. I mean, judges like all human beings are creatures of their own opinions, beliefs, and biases. We all are. So there's some judges may be known to be uh in favor of, let's say, fathers. Some judges are known to rule in favors of in favor of mothers. But I think that's a perception that lawyers have. It doesn't necessarily have to be true. Um, it's a standard uh perception or opinion that a judge who has been uh in the former part of her career as a prosecutor, for example, for a domestic violence prosecutor is going to be very hard and very strict against the fathers and will be pro-women, so to speak. That's not necessarily true, but that's a perception. I think where their harm comes from is that that perception is often converted into legal advice given by lawyers to their clients. If you are a client and if you go to see your lawyer and your lawyer tells you you better not mention the term parental alienation, the moment you mention that in front of this judge, you're gonna lose custody. Now you have no independent way of knowing whether that's true or not. I mean, certainly you're not gonna open a report or read some uh evaluations of the judge where you can find whether it's true or not. You have no objective way of knowing it. You don't know whether that lawyer is uh full of shit. You don't know if that lawyer simply tells you that because he or she doesn't want to do the hard work and go to trial. You don't know whether that lawyer has been told that by some other person, and the lawyer has no independent uh experience of that perception. There are so many ifs and so many buts here. So I think it's uh, I mean, everyone, every judge has a reputation, every lawyer has a reputation, but uh I don't think you can write off a particular judge that, oh, he or she is never going to give you any relief whatsoever. I mean, one way to look at it is to actually look up the public records. Uh, judges like lawyers are subject to professional conduct rules and rules of ethics. If a judge has been uh sanctioned by Court of Appeals or the Superior Court or by the Judicial Tenure Commission, it may or may not be public sanctioned. And if it was a public reprimand, those decisions are available for the public. But I would push back. If you are told that that judge, you have no hope in front of that judge, I would push back and I would ask for more facts, I would ask for more data. If it's indeed true that that judge has repeatedly said in public or on the record that he or she doesn't believe in parental alienation, or he or she believes that the theory or concept of parental alienation is junk science or doesn't exist, that would be an important ground to file a motion for recusal. Because then you have data to demonstrate that that judge has already prejudged a case, and then we have an issue of judicial bias, and there's plenty of case law that allows you to recuse a judge or to ask for a recusal based upon judicial bias. So it would be important to dig deeper than that.
SPEAKER_01:Then what happens if a judge sits there and says, No, I'm not going to recuse myself? I know this case better than anyone else. I'm going to continue with this case.
SPEAKER_00:Right. It's not a case, it's not the issue of whether the judge knows the better case better than anyone else. The demand or the request for recusal is based upon some uh objective uh ground, such as judicial bias or the judge uh having some role in the case uh outside of the capacity of being judge. For example, before the judge became, uh before the judge took the bench, the judge could have been involved in the controversy as a lawyer or as a witness, which would be which would make it difficult for him to be an impartial judge of the case. It would be improper for him or her to preside over the case of the judicial officer. So there are various grounds for for making a request for recusal. If the judge denies that motion for recusal, the next step usually is to take it to the chief judge of that county or their circuit. If that gets denied, you can take it to the court of appeals. And sometimes the court of appeals uh agree with the movements, sometimes they don't. Uh, for example, recently, uh again in Michigan, there was a case, Jacob versus Jacob, out of uh Court of Appeals, and there the father complained about how he was uh cut out of the child's life and how he had been made uh there were so many setbacks against him without any opportunity to present evidence, that he was he had de facto lost parenting time without the court making any finding of fact, and he complained about the improper actions of the minors' counsel. The judge had appointed a guardian at lightum for the child, the lawyer guardian at lightum, which is lawyer for the child, and that professional had crossed boundaries and become enmeshed in litigation and the controversy. The trial judge denied all the reliefs that the father was asking. Uh, the case went up to the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals reversed. And they pointed out that yes, the actions of the lawyer guardian at Leitum for the minor child were improper. She did cross boundaries, she was enmeshed in the controversy. Instead of bringing the parties to a settlement and helping to calm down the tension, she ended up inflaming it. She over-empowered a child who was already overempowered to begin with. And the court agreed with that, the appellate court. And the even though there was no, to my knowledge, direct uh motion for recusal, the court in fact ended up recusing the trial judge. And the appellate court sent it back saying that, well, perhaps it's better if a different judge takes his case over, just for the sense of judicial uh propriety and appearance. It is better that the controversy and the case is send back to a different trial judge, not the same judge. So it does happen. Every case revolves around the facts and circumstances that are unique to it.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. You know, I guess my last question is what can the targeted parents do to help their lawyers? Probably help them give them information, pass transcripts, or if they're representing themselves, what can they do to help the judges make the right decision?
SPEAKER_00:Okay, uh, that's a very important question, and I want to make sure that uh I answer as as completely as I can. So there are several uh issues here. One is how can you help your lawyer? One way to help your lawyer is to not treat your lawyer as your buddy or as your therapist. You should not uh vent when you call your lawyers. I do these cases in and out, I do them around the country and internationally, and I can understand how frustrating it is to be in the shoes of a rejected parent, how painful it is to be a targeted parent, how outrageous it seems that no one is taking notice of your pain, of the injustice, and the courts are not doing anything. But what often ends up is that clients start calling lawyers or sending them long detailed emails, and the lawyers get desensitized to it. They simply get burned out. And in these situations, it's important to understand that your lawyer is not your friend. This is not uh you are not sitting next to a friend at a bar or in a place having a glass of wine or beer and sharing your grief and sharing your stories. It doesn't help to vent at your lawyers or at your lawyers. It doesn't help when you keep on calling them, sending them text messages, sending them long emails day in and day out. You are only gonna end up driving your own bills very high. Sometimes it's helpful to get a coach, a parenting coach, or a coach or a consultant who understands the dynamic of parental alienation cases, who can walk you through that process, who is there for you to talk to, who is there for you to listen, and offer some suggestions, not legal advice, but practical suggestions. Let me give you an example. Many targeted parents end up shooting themselves in the foot or digging themselves into a deeper hole in how they react to the alienation dynamic. So, for example, it's Friday evening, you are supposed to get your kid today, there's supposed to be a transition in the parenting time, you are eagerly expecting the visit, and you get an email from the child saying, I'm not coming over. Dad says, I don't have to, or you get an email from the other parent saying, Uh, little John doesn't want to come to see you this weekend. I told him, but I'm not gonna force him to come. Uh he will see you next week or whatever. And the targeted parent gets so frustrated that all of it then she starts lashing out on Facebook, on social media, on Instagram, uh, emails and text messages to lawyers, sometimes uh writing to guardians at Lightham, judges, therapists, whoever comes to hand, they just start lashing out because they need to vent their frustration somewhere. And that's usually not helpful. It's only used as an excuse to show: well, no wonder the kid doesn't like the parent, no wonder the kid feels insecure or anxious or afraid. Look at what she's doing, look at all these emails, and the lawyers checked out as well. So get a parenting coach to understand uh what is counterproductive in the situation. Other than that, it is helpful for you to collect evidence. Uh, opinions are one thing, facts are another thing. What matters in these cases at the end of the day are facts. Facts are what that matters. So I like to present the case of alienation using the five-factor model of uh Dr. Amy Baker and her colleagues. And I like to tell my clients that think about these five factors as five empty buckets. It's your job to help me to make your case to the court. You are the best person that knows your case forwards and backwards, and start filling these buckets with evidence, not opinions. Don't come and tell me that my ex is a narcissist. That doesn't help me unless you have a diagnosis in your hand that tells me that okay, he has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. That would be helpful. But other than that, don't throw out labels like, oh, he or she is a sociopath, he or she is a psychopath, a narcissist, whatnot. Instead, give me facts, give me text messages, give me emails that show that he absolutely refuses to co-parent, that he is he just doesn't do it. Show me some witness statements or put me in touch with witnesses who can tell me about his behaviors. If he has been emotionally, verbally abusive, if he has been uh condescending, if he has been bad mouthing you to the child or in front of others, let's start putting evidence together. That's what's gonna help your lawyers because then they can channelize that evidence into a proper form before the court and get relief. What ends up happening is that targeted parents send out these long emails full of opinions, conjectures, speculations, and self-serving diagnosis of the other party, and that's not helpful. You also see court pleadings full of these uh uh labels, and judges don't appreciate it, they don't like it, and all you are doing is to shoot yourself in the foot by damaging your credibility. So I think gathering facts and giving them to your lawyer, and the last thing that you should do is to hold your lawyer accountable. If you are doing these things, and if you are giving this evidence, but you don't see the results, you don't see the lawyer filing motions, you don't see the lawyer taking this evidence to the court, you don't see the lawyer coming back to you and telling you, here's the plan, here's how we are gonna proceed in the court, then something is wrong. Then you don't have a functional legal team. And it's important to ask a question why? It's better to find out at the up in the upfront rather than wait for months and months and months and add to your frustration as to why your lawyer is not doing something about it. If the case is weak, then ask your lawyer, well, what can we do? If you think my case is weak, tell me about it. If you think that I don't have a case of alienation, tell me why. And maybe the lawyer is right, maybe there it is not a case of parental alienation, but that doesn't mean that you can't get relief from the court. You don't have to demonstrate parental alienation to get the right relief. Sometimes you can show that the other party is simply refusing to co-parent and it continues to undermine you and continues to sabotage a lot of things. It may not rise to the level of parental alienation, but still, that doesn't mean that that kind of behavior can or should be ignored. But there should be a constructive and open dialogue between you and your lawyer in order to get somewhere.
SPEAKER_01:So I don't want to keep you too much longer because I know you're very busy. But how can people reach you?
SPEAKER_00:Well, um through my website, it's uh www.joshijoatorneys.com.joshiattorneys.com. That's the best way to reach me. Uh, there's a contact us tab on there. You can send an email using that website. I also have uh profiles on Facebook and LinkedIn. I don't typically answer questions through uh social media platforms. Um But uh yeah, if you uh look at my website, you will see my podcasts, some educational videos, uh lots of publications, and there's a lot of content on the website that is not just useful to a targeted parent, but also to the lawyers.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. Um oh before we part, you had said you had written an article. Um and it was it's it like an overseas article or something?
SPEAKER_00:Oh, yes. Uh yes, so I do a lot of work uh in different countries as well. And I keep an eye out for developments in the area of parental alienation. Uh, for example, a couple of years ago, I presented in Stockholm in Sweden about uh Scandinavian countries' approach to alienation. Uh we are working to put together a conference in Australia in 2022. Uh, next year, 2021, there's going to be a conference on parental alienation in Brussels, Belgium, as well. And uh what the article that I wrote about, which you can find on my website, was published in India in the legal publication called Legal Era. And that referred to the 2017 decision from the Indian Supreme Court, where the court acknowledged the concept of parental alienation and uh acknowledged how serious the issue is and the devastating consequences that presents to for an alienated child. And since that decision, there have been many good decisions that have come out from the family courts in India, in different parts of India. So I wrote about that development, uh, and that article is available on my website. There's also a book that came out earlier this year. It's called Parental Alienation: Science and Law. The editors of the book are Dr. Laurandos and Dr. Burnett. The publisher is Charles C. Thomas, and I wrote a chapter in that book about uh international issues, uh, international view of parental alienation, and I did a survey of the entire world divided into common law countries such as the US, New Zealand, Canada, UK, Australia, versus civil law countries such as Germany, France, Spain, and others, and how each country in each jurisdiction have approached parental alienation and where the world stands in uh understanding, recognizing the concept of alienation and the interventions presented towards it.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. Well, I won't keep you any further. I'm so glad you were my guest. And uh it was great having you on.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you, Marian. Pleasure.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, Slam the Gavel is a podcast to help the public understand what really goes on in the family courtrooms that in turn perpetuate parental alienation. I'm your host, Marianne Petrie, author of Dismantling Family Court Corruption. Please join us again for another exciting episode.