A Long Island, N.Y., judge has sentenced a woman to six weekends in
jail for repeatedly undermining her ex-husband's relationship with
their two daughters.

Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the
mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately
alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted
R.

Ross held Ms. R. in civil contempt and ordered her to report to the
Nassau County Correctional Facility every other weekend this summer.

Her term was to have begun on Friday, but was temporarily stayed
pending appeal by a judge from the Appellate Division, 2nd Department,
on Thursday.

"The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and
calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the
parties' Stipulation of Settlement," Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted
R., 203699-02.

"The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to
undermine the relationship between the children and their father and
replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant's
parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant
to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any
semblance of 'good faith,' and her imposition upon the children to
fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they
want to have with their father."

The extraordinary hearing to determine whether Ms. R. should be held
in contempt for violating the couple's stipulation of settlement began
in May 2009 and stretched over 23 days of hearings over the next nine
months.

During the hearing, Mr. R. testified to dozens of occasions in which
his ex-wife either interfered with his visitation rights or
purposefully alienated the children from him.

The judge described about a dozen such incidents or patterns in his
eight-page decision.

In the winter of 2007, for example, Ms. R. prevented Mr. R. from
seeing his daughters for six weeks, Ross wrote.

"I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant
emotionally related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his
children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his
daughters open their grandparents' presents in the back of his truck
at the base of plaintiff's driveway," the judge wrote.

Mr. R. also testified that Ms. R. consistently scheduled theater
outings and social activities with her children so that they would
conflict with his visitation, thereby putting him in the position of
either consenting to a missed visit or risking disappointing his
daughters.

The "crescendo" of Ms. R.'s contempt involved false accusations of
sexual abuse against Mr. R., the judge wrote.

"Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be
baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly
subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services,
placing her own interests above those of the child," Ross wrote. "This
report was not made in 'good faith' -- rather, the investigating
agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her
children in her custodial litigation with the defendant."

In addition to the contempt finding and the temporarily stayed jail
sentence, Ross ordered a hearing to consider a change of custody and
to hear Mr. R.'s application for more than $134,000 in attorney fees.
Those hearings were postponed pending Ms. R.'s appeal.

Ms. R.'s attorney, Kieth I. Rieger of Barrocas & Rieger in Garden
City, N.Y., praised Ross, but criticized the decision, likening it to
last week's missed umpire call that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher a
perfect game.

"I think all of us make mistakes, and I think he's just made a
good-faith, honest mistake in his assessment of this case," Rieger
said. "That's why there's an Appellate Division. I think he just did
not accurately assess my client."

Stanley Hirsch, also of Garden City, represented Mr. R.

"I'm very hopeful that this case will be some type of warning to those
who don't have the children's best interests at heart when they
conduct themselves with their spouses," Hirsch said. "It has great
significance to my client, but I think it has a terrific overall
impact on people who are going through a divorce and not getting along
and involving the children in their disputes."

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202461189158&rss=newswire