Renaud v. Renaud,
721 A.2d 463


Facts: H and W were married and had one son in 1994. In May 1996, H told W that he wanted a divorce and H went to live with another coworker and her children. W stayed with their child and lived in the marital home. Both parties worked full tame. Prior to the separation, both shared in the upbringing of their son. Almost immediately after H moved out, W began to impede H's contact with the child forcing H to file numerous petitions to establish a temporary visitation schedule. W then filed petitions saying that H had sexually abused the child, these petitions further disrupted H's contact with the child. None of the abuse allegations were substantiated and all of W's petitions were ultimately dismissed. The court chastised W in strong language and found that W's influence over the boy had in fact greatly impacted the boy's relationship with his father. However, in spite of this conduct on the part of W the court still gave custody of the child to W because W had sought counseling to overcome her emotional problems and to repair the damage that she inflicted on her son. H appealed this decision as a patent abuse of discretion.

Issue: Did the court abuse its discretion in awarding sole custody to D despite the fact that D engaged in a continual and unmitigated course of conduct de-signed to alienate the child from P?

Rule:The best interests of the child is the standard for awarding custody. Alienation of the affection of a child to a parent because of the other parent is not in the best interest of the child.


Holding: No. Judgment affirmed.
The Supreme Court, Johnson, J., held that: (1) evidence was sufficient to establish that wife's purpose in filing relief-from-abuse petitions was not to alienate child from husband and that her concerns were not wholly unreasonable; (2) award of parental rights and responsibilities to wife was not abuse of discretion; and (3) evidence of record supported trial court's findings and conclusions with respect to disposition of marital property.

Analysis:In terminating the parties' marriage, the family court awarded sole custody of the parties' child to the mother, despite a finding that the mother had undermined the child's relationship with the father by filing excessive and baseless petitions alleging that the father had abused the child. The father appealed, claiming that the family court erred in awarding sole custody to the mother in light of its finding that she had undermined his relationship with the child. The father also claimed that the family court erred in dividing the marital property. The court affirmed, holding that the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody of the child to the mother because the evidence did not demonstrate that the mother's sole purpose in filing the abuse petitions was to alienate the child from his father, the mother's concerns regarding the alleged abuse were not wholly unreasonable, and the mother's actions were unlikely to be repeated. The court also noted that a change of custody would have been detrimental to the child. The court also found that the family court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a larger portion of the marital estate to the mother.