Thomas Schacht, Ph.D. Concludes Father’s Parental Alienation
Thomas Schacht, Ph.D., forensic psychologist and expert witness testimony on parental alienation claims in a Tennessee custody case.
McClain v. McClain
[This case was originally briefed in this blog in 2018, but we wanted a deeper dive here about the forensic psychology testimony.]
The parents in this Tennessee case were divorced in 2001, and the court entered a parenting plan for their two children. There were some modifications over the years, and as of 2009, the father was named primary residential parent with 268 days of parenting time. At some time thereafter, the mother relocated to Texas. In 2015, the mother made a motion to modify custody, and she pointed to various alleged violations of the 2009 order.
The parties were eventually able to come to terms, and agreed to a new parenting plan. The father was still primary residential parent, and the mother was granted 85 days of parenting time, most of which would be exercised in Texas. When the mother alleged more violations by the father, the trial court ordered an assessment by a forensic psychologist.
The mother had alleged that the father had begun denying in-person and telephone contact with the children, and had failed in his obligations to bring the children to counseling sessions.
Dr. Thomas Schacht, Forensic Psychologist. Click to see his testimony from a televised criminal trial, available on YouTube.
The forensic psychologist appointed by the trial court was Thomas Schacht, Ph.D., and he was directed to conduct “full psychological testing” of the parents and the older child. Dr. Schacht’s report concluded that the children were “alienated from their mother, not justifiably estranged, and the alienation appears to be supported by the actions and statements of others, including at least their father and paternal grandmother.”
He had based this conclusion upon review of records and other materials, such as text messages, as well as interviews with the parents, children, teachers, and principal. One of the text messages was from the older child to the mother in which he referred to the mother as “satan” and expressed his opinion that he would someday see “both of you burning below.” He later testified that by “both of you,” he meant his mother and maternal grandmother. He concluded the text by stating that he hoped his mother enjoyed her last vacation with her favorite child, namely, the younger one.
Dr. Schacht had also noted suicidal ideation by both children, but concluded that these had been driven mostly to control outcomes, as opposed to true expressions of a desire to hurt themselves.
The mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and the father had expressed to the older child his view that mental illness was a “spiritual problem.” Dr. Schacht stated his opinion that this influence was a potential risk to the children if they were affected by a mental illness in the future.
Based upon Dr. Schacht’s testimony, the trial court concluded that there had been a “severe” case of parental alienation. Dr. Schacht had had proposed four options for dealing with this alienation. The first was to simply grant the father exclusive custody with no visitation by the mother, which amounted to preserving the status quo. The second option was to keep the father as primary residential parent, but with efforts to remedy the alienation. The third option was to place the children in a neutral setting away from both parents. The final option was to name the mother as primary residential parent and suspend all contact with the father until the children demonstrated progress in their relationship with their mother.
For that fourth option, Dr. Schacht had recommended a workshop named Family Bridges in California. The trial court felt that this would be the best option. Since the father had the greater income, he was to be responsible for two-thirds of the cost of Family Bridges.
The mother was named the primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority. The father was to have no contact with the children for at least 90 days, starting with the commencement of the Family Bridges Workshop. His future parenting time was to be contingent upon compliance with workshop guidelines.
The older child turned 18 in 2016, and the orders concerning him were to have no effect after that time.
The father ultimately appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. On the issue of change of custody, the appeals court noted that parental alienation is a development that constitutes a “material change of circumstances,” warranting a change.
The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the evidence, particularly Dr. Schacht’s report, supported the lower court’s finding that there had been a severe case of parental alienation against the mother by the father and paternal grandmother. The lower court had found, and the appeals court agreed, that both parties had opportunity to present information to Dr. Schacht, and that he was not missing any vital information.
The appeals court pointed out that the lower court had found Dr. Schacht’s testimony to be very credible, but that the father’s testimony often consisted of extreme negative generalizations about the mother.
Dr. Schacht concluded that the alienation of the children from the mother had reached “crisis proportions,” and the appeals court agreed with this characterization.
For these reasons, the appeals court agreed that there had been a material change of circumstances, and it went on to conclude that the change of custody, coupled with the Family Bridges Workshop, was in the children’s best interest.
539 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2017).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see Child Custody Laws in Tennessee and our video, How is child custody determined in Tennessee?
See also Tennessee Parenting Plans and Child Support Worksheets: Building a Constructive Future for Your Family featuring examples of parenting plans and child support worksheets from real cases available on Amazon.com.
