Alan R. Feigenbaum, Judge Richard A. Dollinger*, and Deepti Shenoy* ●
New York Law Journal, April 23, 2026 —
Parental alienation has been characterized by the appellate courts as an act so—alien—to a child’s best interests as to render a parent presumptively unfit to have custody of the child. Given the ubiquity of claims of parental alienation in custody litigation, and the significance of findings of alienation on the outcome of custody decisions, it bears inquiring: what, in fact, is parental alienation? How does it affect a child’s best interests? And in what circumstances should it play a determinative role in a custody decision?
Last month, these authors presented an online CLE titled “Parental Alienation: A Primer”. In that CLE, we addressed Justice Richard Dollinger’s (Ret.) decision in J.F. v. D.F., 2018 NY Slip Op 51829(U) (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cty., 2018). J.F. stands out as arguably the most comprehensive effort in New York caselaw to drill down on these questions and explore the concept of parental alienation in depth.
In J.F., Justice Dollinger wrote that “The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
consists of four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress…Simple word substitution—‘parental alienation’ for ‘emotional distress’—creates an equivalence between this tort designed to protect an individual’s emotional status and the family law concept to protect and preserve a parent’s relationship with their children. If the substitution works, then parental alienation consists of four elements: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe alienation of any parent from a child; (iii) a causal connection between the alienating conduct and the child’s rejection of a parent; and (iv) severe parental alienation.”
We spoke with Judge Dollinger in an effort to solicit his view as to the state of the discourse on parental alienation and what remains for practitioners, courts, and interested parties to consider as we continue to explore the concept of parental alienation and the role it should play in custody matters. What followed was an illuminating discussion—a view from the bench—which we present in Q&A form below:
1. In J.F., you wrote that parental alienation is an “undefined concept” in New York family law. How is it that a concept which is at stake in so many contested custody disputes remains undefined?
Judge Dollinger: The concept is undefined because of the complex factors at play in intra-family squabbles that come to the courts. Trying to isolate and prioritize facts, when contested by fathers, mothers, and often children, and to then evaluate those facts in complicated family relationships that are aggravated by separation, defies easy definition.
Read more on our website.
*Richard A. Dollinger is a retired member of the Court of Claims and served as an acting Supreme Court Justice in the 7th Judicial District where he supervised matrimonial cases. Deepti Shenoy is senior counsel at Aronson Mayefsky and Sloan.
