4 Staggering Truths Revealed in a Parental Alienation Court Case
Introduction: When a Child’s Love is Weaponized
Divorce is a painful and common feature of modern life, but a far more insidious and damaging process can unfold when one parent actively works to turn their children against the other. This phenomenon, known as parental alienation, is a subtle form of emotional harm that can be devastatingly effective and notoriously difficult to prove in court.
A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, Burns v. Kendall, provides a rare and unfiltered look into the mechanics of severe parental alienation. The judge’s detailed reasons for decision document a five-year-long conflict and reveal the drastic measures a court will take to protect children from the “poisoning of their minds.” This post will distill four of the most impactful and surprising truths revealed in this complex and heart-wrenching case.
1. The Children’s Resistance Sounded “Scripted”
A core observation made by social workers and the judge was that the children’s reasons for not wanting to see their father, Adam Burns, seemed rehearsed and lacked the authentic detail one would expect from a genuinely fearful child. When questioned, their opposition appeared brittle and programmed.
This disconnect was starkly illustrated in the court record. Child protection worker Kathy Thomas noted that when she asked the children questions that took them “off script,” they were unable to provide clear reasons for their fears. The 14-year-old son, Benjamin, made the extreme threat that if he had to live with his father, he and his sister would “run away or kill myself,” yet delivered the line with no corresponding emotion of fear or anxiety. Similarly, 8-year-old Brianna would frequently bring up a past spanking incident, but did so unnaturally, “as if she is trained to refer to the incident, then moves easily to a new topic.”
The judge powerfully summarized this contradiction between the children’s words and their actual behavior when with their father.
“In this case, there is a disconnect between the children’s expressed resistance to spending time with their father and the consistent reports that when they are together, the children appear to be content and at ease.”
This reality creates a profound difficulty for authorities. They are forced to determine whether a child’s stated wishes reflect their true feelings or are merely an echo of the destructive influence of an alienating parent.
2. The Mother’s Words and Actions Didn’t Match
Throughout the proceedings, the mother, Jennifer Kendall, repeatedly insisted that she supported the children’s relationship with their father and was doing everything possible to encourage it. However, the judge’s decision meticulously cataloged a series of actions that told a different story, creating a pattern of deception that ultimately undermined her credibility with the court.
Her actions directly contradicted her claims:
- She advised her son to call the police if he was worried about access visits with his father.
- She called police reporting the children were being “held against their will,” prompting a safety check where an officer found them happy, in good spirits, and playing games.
- She brought the children to a courthouse hearing and provided an untrue explanation to the judge for their presence.
- When a social worker questioned why her daughter was worried about foster care, the child said her mother had raised the possibility. The mother claimed the child must have “misunderstood.”
After reviewing this evidence, the judge came to a stark conclusion about the mother’s true intentions.
“The weight of the evidence satisfies me that Ms. Kendall is intentionally deploying strategies to put distance between the children and Mr. Burns. Her actions do not match her words. I conclude that her goal is to reduce the children’s contact with Mr. Burns, not to encourage and promote such contact. In short, she is engaging in parental alienation behaviour.”
This consistent pattern of duplicity provided the court with a clear lens through which to view the entire conflict, shifting the focus from the children’s stated fears to the mother’s demonstrable actions as the primary driver of the family’s dysfunction.
3. The Court Acted Decisively, Even Though the Father Wasn’t Perfect
One of the most surprising elements of this case is that the court’s decision was not a simple matter of choosing a “good” parent over a “bad” one. The judge acknowledged that the father, Mr. Burns, had a history of deeply concerning behavior that was part of the official record.
The court considered historical allegations against Mr. Burns that he himself admitted to, including killing the family cat in front of his son as a form of discipline and, in another incident, hog-tying his son Benjamin in a field and leaving him there while he was frightened and crying. The judge also noted present-day concerns about Mr. Burns’s “inflexible and hard-nosed parenting style.”
Despite this history, the judge’s reasoning focused on the current and ongoing emotional harm being inflicted on the children through alienation. The court relied on legal precedent emphasizing the urgent need to intervene before the damage becomes irreversible.
“…where parental alienation exists, it is manifestly important that steps be taken immediately. If they are not, the situation will only get worse. If the alienating parent continues to have unfettered access to the children, there is little doubt that the poisoning of the children’s minds will continue.”
The key takeaway is that the court prioritized stopping the immediate and severe emotional damage of alienation over penalizing a parent for past mistakes. The decision was squarely focused on the best interests of the children in the present moment, which required stopping the alienation at its source.
4. The Solution Was a Drastic “Reversal of Parenting”
Faced with overwhelming evidence of alienation, the judge ordered a solution that was as decisive as it was dramatic: a temporary and immediate reversal of custody. The father, Mr. Burns, was granted sole custody, and the mother was ordered to deliver the children to him the very next day.
To break the cycle of influence, the court imposed a highly unusual and strict “no-contact” period. For the first two weeks, there was to be no communication between the children and their mother, except for a single 10-minute phone call after five days. The purpose of that call was solely for “re-assuring the children of Ms. Kendall’s well-being,” and any discussion of the court case was strictly forbidden. After that initial separation, contact was to be slowly reintroduced, beginning with one-hour supervised visits every other week.
The judge’s rationale for such a severe measure was clear. The court had to weigh the risk of emotional upset the children would feel from “a loosening of their mother’s grip” against the long-term damage of allowing the alienation to continue. The order demonstrates that the judge believed the only way to restore a positive relationship with their father was to create a complete break from the mother’s influence. This was not a minor adjustment; it was a profound judicial intervention designed to completely disrupt the dynamic of alienation and create the necessary space for healing.
Conclusion: A Painful Path to Healing
The case of Burns v. Kendall serves as a stark reminder that courts view parental alienation as a serious form of emotional harm that can justify extraordinary intervention. Faced with what one precedent case called the “poisoning of the children’s minds,” the court determined that only a drastic remedy could serve as the antidote. The judge’s decision to look past the children’s “scripted” resistance and focus on the alienating parent’s pattern of behavior demonstrates a commitment to protecting a child’s right to a relationship with both parents.
The outcome, however, leaves a final, difficult question. While such decisive action may be necessary to break the cycle of alienation, what is the long-term emotional toll on children who are placed at the center of such a drastic judicial remedy?