## Facts

- A husband sued his wife’s parents for alienation of affections after the wife left the marital home.
- The husband claimed the parents wrongfully and maliciously advised and persuaded their daughter to separate from him, causing loss of consortium and affections.
- The trial court instructed the jury that if the wife left because of the parents’ interference, the jury must find for the husband.
- The jury returned a verdict for the husband, and the parents challenged the instruction by exceptions.

## Issues

1. In an alienation-of-affections action against a spouse’s parents, is proof that parental interference caused the separation sufficient for liability?
2. Must the plaintiff instead prove malice, improper motive, or lack of justification in light of a qualified parental privilege to advise an adult child?

## Decision

- The court sustained the parents’ exceptions, set aside the verdict, and ordered a new trial.
- It held that parental liability does not arise merely because advice or interference caused the separation.
- The challenged instruction was erroneous because it treated causation as enough and failed to require a finding of malice or unjustified interference.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a qualified privilege to counsel or advise a married child, including advice that may lead to separation, when acting in good faith from proper motives and on reasonable grounds.
- When the defendant is a parent, a stronger showing of wrongful conduct is required than when the defendant is a stranger.
- In this context, liability for alienation of affections requires proof that the parent acted maliciously or from an improper motive, or otherwise without justification; causation alone is insufficient.
- A parent’s good-faith, honestly held, and reasonably grounded belief that intervention is needed to protect the child defeats liability even if the advice is later shown to have been unnecessary.

## Conclusion

The court required that a husband suing his wife’s parents for alienation of affections prove malicious or unjustified interference, and it ordered a new trial because the jury was instructed to impose liability based on causation alone rather than considering the parents’ qualified privilege and motive.


Oakman v. Belden, 94 Me. 280, 47 A. 553 (Me. 1900)