A Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders met on Monday to discuss reforming the family court system. The committee focused on complaints about “therapeutic intervention” (TI), when courts order a therapist to deal with parents who have split up. HB 2256, sponsored by State Representative Rachel Keshel (R-Tucson) and amended in a striker bill by State Senator Mark Finchem (R-Prescott), would prohibit a court from ordering a party against their will to pay for and work with one of these individuals.
The hearing was part of a series of hearings looking into family court problems that will extend through the summer. The Arizona Legislature issued a press release about the hearing afterwards. “As a legislator and a mother, I can’t stay silent while Arizona families are being torn apart behind closed courtroom doors,” said Keshel. “What we heard in the committee was heartbreaking — but not surprising. Parents are being silenced, children are being traumatized, and the people responsible hide behind the bench or a therapy license. We have a duty to expose this abuse and fix a system that no longer serves the best interests of the child.”
Several parents spoke to the committee about their bad experiences with TIs. Finchem, who chaired the committee, expressed his surprise that 33 had signed up to testify to the committee, which was too many to speak during the two hour hearing. Only a few parents were able to speak, and Finchem told the rest they could sign up to speak at the next meeting on May 12. Most of the parents told how the TI in their case cost them their life savings and took their children away from them, giving them to the other parent without just cause.
The first parent to testify was Rachel Barnett. She said she was abused by her ex during their marriage, and the TI who got involved got her four children removed from her home. She said in exchange for full custody of her children and being allowed to move with them to Arizona from Ohio, she gave up child support and the house. She said her ex then sold the house and used the money to hire an attorney. She ended up having to pay for supervised visitation. She said the court-appointed advisor to her case handled it poorly, and didn’t have experience in the area, coming from a background as a drug and alcohol counselor. She said her children were physically abused by her ex.
Parent Robert Delgarbino said there are “bad actors” among the TIs and psychologists assigned to cases. He said the problem is the judges predictably follow their recommendations. Even though his son is 17, and wanted to address the court, the judge refused to listen to him. Delgarbino said his son is highly intelligent and went over his accomplishments. Based on his ex-wife’s lawyer claiming that he parentally alienated their son, the judge took away his custody. He said for 11 months he wasn’t allowed to see his son. It cost him $75,000 over two years to deal with a hostile TI. However, once a new TI was assigned to his case, after spending just $2,400 on the new one, the issues were resolved in three weeks.
Sophia Clover, who identified herself as a 15-year-old honor student, said she’d spent five years subjected to a bad therapist. She said the therapist disclosed confidential information. Clover said the therapist told her abuse by her father — even recent abuse — didn’t matter since it was in the past. Instead, the therapist brought their father into sessions and he made them cry.
The therapist recommended reunification therapy, which has since been banned by the legislature with last year’s SB 1372, and her mother was urged to relinquish custody of her two children. She said it cost her mother $550,000 and she lost all of her savings and investments. Ultimately, the court reversed custody based on hearsay, stripped her mother of parental rights, and only allowed her supervised visitation. While living with her father, Clover said she missed activities and had food taken away as punishment. She was required to meet with a child therapist once a week for five years.
After she testified, Finchem told her, “You’re a courageous young lady,” and although the room had been told to be quiet, erupted in loud applause.
Parent Angie Nielsen said she spent 14 years in the family court system dealing with her son, who is now 16. She spent over $1 million including all of her retirement and money from her parents. She now works three jobs, which includes one full-time job. She filed bankruptcy twice. In contrast, she said her ex-husband has far more money than her. She’s paid for supervised visitation of four hours a week since 2023, and isn’t allowed to talk to her son outside of those sessions, even on the phone. She’s spent $34,000 on the supervised visitation at $250 per visit. She found out she’s being taken to court again soon. Forensic examinations she’s ordered to undergo produce “no findings.” Even though reunification camps were banned by the legislature, she’s still required to participate in “aftercare” from one.
Finchem responded, “Kind of mind blowing to me. OK, so you separate a child from a parent, and they call it reunification.”
Nielsen explained that originally her custody was 50/50, until “this therapeutic interventionist came on the case and then she got all of her friends, the same that are on most of these cases, to surround me and say I’m an alienator. So there’s a certain group of psychologists and [others with] masters [degrees] that work together to gang up on parents.” She said when SB 1372 passed last year, her daughter, a top student, testified in favor of it. She said her son is also a top student, and both said they wanted to be with their mother but were ignored by the court.
Finchem got her to clarify that it’s a “closed community” of therapists and psychologists and she has their names. She said the state ombudsman didn’t help. Finchem recommended she look into emancipation for her son.
Parent Dominic Sabaticci said his custody was reduced and he was required to take frequent drug tests, even though he is sober. He said this was because he works in the food service industry.
“I’ve had my son, Oliver, since his birth, every week, half of the week,” he said. “We’re just shy of two years after 45 minutes in court. I now have him eight hours a month. I pay $2,000 an hour in legal fees, testing fees and supervision fees to see much. It’s currently costing over $4,000 an hour to see my son [the] eight hours a month I get him.”
Dr. Michelle Fox said she lost custody of her son six years ago and, over the past eight years, has spent $300,000. “I was placed on supervised visits, at one point, totaling $4,000 a month in fees to again be extorted to see my own child,” she said. “A TI was appointed to my case unlawfully in violation of state statute, which requires an act of custody or divorce proceeding to allow the appointment of these individuals that I was ultimately awarded equal parent time, so not custody, with a caveat that the TI would be responsible for dictating the specific reunification schedule and return of my parenting time, this TI proceeded to recommend a specific family court visit supervisor who’s also been responsible for the harm to countless families and worked in concert very well to suppress the outcomes of my little boy who was in severe distress, severe harm. It was very clear what was happening to him was maliciously covered up for profit.”
Only one individual spoke in favor of retaining TIs. Kristin Alcott, a frequent court-appointed “therapeutic parenting time supervisor” herself, claimed that the parents weren’t objecting to the “structure” of the program but to “the outcome of their personal case.” She said TIs are not assigned to average family court cases but to high-conflict situations. She admitted it was rare that the court talked to a child. Alcott admitted that TIs charge $150 to $400 per hour.
Finchem responded and pointed out that it took a new TI only three weeks to resolve a situation that had been going on for over two years with a different TI “points to competency.”
Keshel asked Alcott, “Why are certain judges continuing to give the abusive parent that? So are you telling me the judges get to decide from the bench what they feel like they are allowed to break the state law?”
Alcott said that judges can do what they want from the bench, and the remedy is to appeal. Finchem responded, “I take great umbrage [that] the court can do whatever it pleases. The court has to act within the confines of the four corners of the law. I am very concerned, after what we’ve heard so far, that the civil rights of children have been violated, not just by the court, but by officers of the court.”
Joanne MacDonnell, the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens’ Aide, testified that parents having problems with the family court could come to her office for assistance like they would with any government agency. “We’re established to make government more responsive to Arizona citizens,” she said. “We help people navigate through the government. Arizona citizens can turn to us when they did not know what to do in a government area, or when they feel they’ve been treated unfairly by a state administrator, agency, department, board or commission.”
HB 2256 passed the State House earlier this month 36-22, with most Republicans and a few Democrats in favor of it.
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter / X. Email tips to [email protected].
