[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6058471,"mediaKeyId","3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59","parentId",3297140,"title","Teen and child witnesses tell committee their voices were ignored in family court","audioSeconds",3312,"startMs",3092000,"endMs",6404000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59&start=3092&end=6404","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59/thumbnail_3092000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6058471/Arizona/Teen-and-child-witnesses-tell-committee-their-voices-were-ignored-in-family-court","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058471-af20dc64d53a6c60b88963014ac59347/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156674&Signature=jXuYlMA-1Ts9NJ2rH7WQd0XdtOr0AhufpaR0~5qprgmraqvHjpF98TYbtLigvgAPmOxCoJkQAB0pH6o6hmlGj8BLFX8UHTU40C9vVVadeP~32TL4Etw7NRWH3X9V3A3Oe8mEeaVJo3Lq-tqV9C9XDgxFru09jW4czvsfbFRS6-yzSk3-eat4BBM-9qBs1JW4JNC9TNX1~nTZ4zG4NAzy4rK8WNedYUbqbGCSszc4EQvMP2EOTaa4XxAs2aFqZUlMq61xQTsXt4NciIjWNwwSWSoHjlWTKa~M3ByoQCydGx4Xp~~5d5p82Zfr9MjnPwpIlxa0E1klif5OPXHmUhPonw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona Legislature","date","2025-05-12T00:00:00Z","article","Several minors, and young adults who had grown up in custody cases, told the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee that their wishes were discounted by judges and by the systems designed to protect them.

A 16‑year‑old, Atalia Durfield, testified she told the court she had been physically and emotionally abused and that she repeatedly told judges she did not want to return to her father’s care. “I begged the court not to make me go back because I was and am terrified,” Durfield told the committee. She said court‑appointed professionals met with her briefly and that the judge ultimately gave unsupervised contact to the parent she feared.

A 15‑year‑old, who asked to be identified in testimony as Maggie, told the committee she is an Arizona native involved in school and community leadership and that, despite being old enough to speak publicly and lead in other settings, courts denied her statements about her safety. “When we speak out, all it does is make our living arrangements worse…We are still carrying the consequences,” Maggie said, urging lawmakers to consider a “children’s choice” law and better mechanisms to protect children who speak up.

Other witnesses described similar experiences: a young woman said a judge told her the family court did not require the same due‑process standards as criminal court and that her infant was taken into foster care despite evidence of a metabolic bone condition later confirmed by medical specialists. Several parents and minors urged lawmakers to require appointment of truly independent child advocates able to interview children in a neutral environment and to ensure interview protocols capture first‑hand testimony from minors in age‑appropriate ways.

What lawmakers heard: Children’s testimony in the hearing represented vivid, first‑person accounts of fear, alleged abuse and the consequences of court orders. Commission and board witnesses earlier in the day told the committee they do not routinely interview children for professional licensing reviews; several speakers suggested the legislature examine statutory options for appointing guardian ad litem or child‑advocate roles that include direct, child‑centered interviewing and reporting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","05/12/2025 - Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders","oneSentenceSummary","Multiple minors and young people testified that judges, court advocates and service providers failed to protect or meaningfully consider their wishes; witnesses urged the legislature to create stronger, direct representation and advocate roles for children in family proceedings.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6058476,"Parents and advocates tell lawmakers therapeutic interventionists, supervised services can cost thousands and escape accountability",788,4083000,4871000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59&start=4083&end=4871","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59/thumbnail_4083000.jpg","/articles/6058476/Arizona/Parents-and-advocates-tell-lawmakers-therapeutic-interventionists-supervised-services-can-cost-thousands-and-escape-accountability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058476-5a570eedf758f0495af989518921db4f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156674&Signature=cVCKYQ2EtrAmsthWAR9JX4xl2OkvJ4DP9jGOz33cgiMoIyC5aw7KpYrE~YBXH1ZXrOOvzD5GvoR8liqf~30BsMyD8rlRvwt2Yiqw83cBDGyW7tF2XRiua0T0rA4CnRArxeKI5HsGw65fID96hBJ3HmmqDnX-fm7xpQxOtYqZt~BIz6gMpgfV7eGXqmV0tn25Kw22hsWz6Cyjctf8YEd~IJ1eSsCCKZ8aUHvdy~MrKyS1UgfLk0xlAoPVli74DX-D3mjaQ-DJ34usc64iv9KnSc~gQmReFvDBN5eEtsOtHZ5LIovdf30qJlJ~7koI8i5BgkzZmzLFbK4kWqbbn-6U6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Parents, advocates and several service providers told the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee that court‑ordered therapeutic services, supervised visitation and intensive family therapy routinely impose large out‑of‑pocket costs on families and that statutory immunity and weak oversight make the system vulnerable to conflicts of interest.

Several parents recounted long, expensive court fights that required repeated therapy sessions, psychological evaluations and supervised visits. Jackson Asatwell, who described himself as a private investigator, told the committee he was facing bankruptcy after paying court‑ordered fees and alleged irregularities in court orders. Robert Del Garvino said judges often appoint a therapeutic interventionist (TI) who then refers families to a group of preferred providers and clinics, creating long streams of revenue to a small network of professionals. He told lawmakers that “the circle of influence is used repeatedly in many cases” and that some parents said they were ordered to use specific providers and paid hundreds or thousands of dollars per month.

Several witnesses compared the recent legislative action banning out‑of‑state reunification camps to a continuing problem: “intensive family therapy” and other court‑ordered programs that parents say function as a substitute for the banned camps. Robert Del Garvino testified that he paid roughly $19,000 for an intensive family therapy program in which he received only brief direct contact with the lead provider.

Monty Schultz, a licensed clinical social worker, told lawmakers that some professionals receive compensation far above customary insurance rates because the services are court‑ordered and billed as out‑of‑pocket fees. He also said that training for TIs often comes from a narrow set of providers, creating a “like‑minded” culture and raising the risk that courts will repeatedly rely on the same network of professionals.

Advocates asked lawmakers to revisit statutory immunities and to consider clearer licensing or disclosure rules for third‑party court appointees. Witnesses urged the legislature to require stronger conflict‑of‑interest checks, more transparent rosters for court appointees, and clearer statutory limits on when a court may appoint a private provider to deliver or supervise services. Jeff Taylor of the Salvation Army told the committee that family court has become “an industry to create extensions,” with long supervised‑visitation schedules, repeated testing regimes and other measures that extend cases and raise bills for families.

Why it matters: Parents and stakeholders told lawmakers that the current mix of court orders, narrow provider networks and immunity provisions can create large financial burdens and potential conflicts of interest. Lawmakers face requests for new transparency, possible limits on immunity, and rules to audit appointment lists and fee practices.","Multiple parents and advocates told a legislative hearing that court‑ordered therapeutic interventionists, reunification programs and supervised visitation have created a high‑cost private market and that statutory immunity and thin oversight allow recurring fees and alleged conflicts of interest.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6058481,"Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct urges limits on its role; explains complaint volume and confidentiality rules",595,2768000,3363000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59&start=2768&end=3363","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59/thumbnail_2768000.jpg","/articles/6058481/Arizona/Arizona-Commission-on-Judicial-Conduct-urges-limits-on-its-role-explains-complaint-volume-and-confidentiality-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058481-ddca1fed6f5c06de637e44db69253de5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156674&Signature=GB9iGaYPNPDcdZQW8Rt2f5Bqvv-riCU7H9mZzhj-j7188R9sfSpXDlK9FzET4SSW3X~Vtbq9-AbbxzkkmeIid3O9PNw9CGp8niZp8OUNYwMWTXCDIIT2iCSuqFTZY~3DSJmzA~XTwhLDAWb-q-H8s6hpP-ZykXOpS~Qh8bvNg2RDBZQWpeV9uobS00oi3SQcdaTBbw73kBQXEYF0TXyGxbrmhJuyvXc5yvGGiRKqpIu9knhOJ8JQkYUk~vSt~OUsSh-oGN9m1v5B0QIJKYwfeYCaiDFnm5ZLxRiOXe01rygFwAgbZt8~l7OYSSnbHpg2rgVEv-ajprNaMLrGrBFiUA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct told the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee that it investigates allegations that judges violated the Code of Judicial Conduct but cannot change a judge’s legal rulings or reassign cases.

Executive Director April Elliott told lawmakers the commission was created by Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution and investigates judicial officers at all levels of state court. “We are limited to investigating allegations of judicial misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and if warranted … imposing informal sanctions or recommending the imposition of formal sanctions to the Arizona Supreme Court,” Elliott said.

Elliott said the commission receives hundreds of complaints each year (463 in a recent July–April reporting period), and roughly 23% of those complaints involved family law issues during the latest fiscal slice she cited. She described high dismissal rates nationwide and locally — often because complaints ask the commission to act as an appellate court when the underlying issue is an alleged incorrect legal ruling. “A mistake in a ruling does not automatically mean the judicial officer has engaged in judicial misconduct,” Elliott said, summarizing the commission’s standard that violations must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

The commission also explained confidentiality and public‑record rules under the Constitution and commission regulations: dismissed complaints are largely redacted before publication while public sanctions are made public. Elliott said the commission lacked resources for broad public outreach but has done “Coffee with the Commission” to educate legislators. She added that their office currently funds one permanent disciplinary counsel investigator and for two years has temporarily funded a second position with grant assistance; the grant expires in mid‑2026 and the commission’s request to permanently fund a second investigator remains pending with the legislature.

Commission member Colleen Concannon told the panel that the commission does investigate allegations such as threats to witnesses and would interview parties and witnesses where appropriate. Elliott and Concannon both stressed the commission’s inability to change judicial decisions and said complainants who are really seeking reversal of a legal ruling should pursue appellate review. The commission encouraged complainants to use its process for misconduct claims and said it will investigate allegations of improper behavior or ex parte communications and, if misconduct is found, recommend sanctions to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Why it matters: Lawmakers heard the limits of a constitutionally formed, independent agency that disciplines judges for proven misconduct but cannot act as an appellate court. Committee members pressed the commission on complaint outcomes, staffing and evidence standards; the commission said its dismissal rate is high because many complaints are essentially legal appeals, and it lacks permanent funding for a second investigator.","The Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct described its role as an investigator of judicial misconduct — not an appellate court — and told the legislature it receives hundreds of complaints yearly but is constrained by constitutional confidentiality rules and limited investigation staffing.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6058486,"Arizona psychology board explains special review process for court-ordered clinicians",347,212000,559000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59&start=212&end=559","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3297140-8337b63236b45e7758c8e60f91d97f59/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6058486/Arizona/Arizona-psychology-board-explains-special-review-process-for-court-ordered-clinicians","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6058486-a05d37b8c522cd87cbb5e7854e195b9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156674&Signature=OEVSeYxp4ntX3qNXQpkrQ0z53Ri8ROdAEHAYsRKL6bGMepohGTfKJ8NTNLYOu4qA3sMZ4WfIgjhhfmqQ4xtlwuEF~725kcWy9iYzfN28A0hG32roukwXMLR4IIVqBKOhU4tTrYhJWBQ8iqzMw8ShxJ2uqfLBaLFHbwPXPbFXFlEMJp6aYLthQpuDburkMt~M6NNvHN46sfSeYzO17U7QsutVwBDQ-bKB9jtnzllMeoiAcMjTEJ007ZdW3Sce412Sm9e~uPMOwletOTD4DDKYTID1vdtezSvtz4qupfbz7XdXdqICzv1-9kj-Y6BSvnH317Ozhf-lHYVUwyyAzoxgAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Arizona State Board of Psychologist Examiners told a Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee that a statute enacted in 2015 requires three board members — including a public member — to independently review claims of unprofessional conduct that arise from court‑ordered services and recommend whether an investigation should open.

The board’s deputy director, Jennifer Michaelson, said the board’s “mission is to protect the public by licensing only those who meet the statutory qualifications” and to investigate violations, but she emphasized limits on the board’s authority. “The statute that was created does not grant the Board any authority to remove a psychologist from a particular court case, or overturn any opinions or decisions made by the psychologists or influence a court of law or judge to disregard that opinion,” Michaelson told the committee.

Michaelson said the board receives relatively few claims tied to court‑ordered services — roughly nine per year on average from 2019–2024 — and that about 40% of those reviewer‑screened claims proceed to the board’s complaint process. She explained why the statute originally kept the process confidential at the review stage: to avoid interrupting ongoing delivery of court‑ordered services. Michaelson also said that when a claim becomes a complaint the psychologist is notified and “afforded their due process rights throughout the complaint adjudication process.”

Psychologist board member Joe Stewart and board vice chair Diana Medina joined Michaelson at the hearing and fielded lawmakers’ questions about how the board evaluates whether a clinician acted within the scope the court ordered. Stewart said the answer usually turns on the language in the court order: “That’s usually spelled out in the order of the court,” he told the panel. Medina described educational and training pathways for psychologists and said cultural competency and continuing education are part of licensure and renewal requirements.

Committee leaders asked the board for additional complaint‑level information (with appropriate redactions) about whether complaints cluster against a small number of clinicians; Michaelson said she would research that request and follow up with the committee. The committee chair also asked the board to provide complaint content and to confirm staff availability; Michaelson said she would inform the board’s executive director of the request.

Why it matters: The board’s explanation clarified an existing statutory process and its limits — notably that the board can investigate violations of professional standards but cannot reverse court decisions or remove clinicians from active court appointments. Lawmakers pressed the board on transparency, clustering of complaints, and whether first‑person testimony from minors is collected; board members said the board does not currently interview children directly and suggested a statutory child‑advocate role might be needed if the legislature wishes that evidence gathered for review.","The Arizona State Board of Psychologist Examiners outlined its statutory “claims” review—created in 2015—for allegations arising from court‑ordered services and said it cannot remove clinicians from active court cases or overturn opinions judges receive in court.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Teen and child witnesses tell committee their voices were ignored in family court

Parents and advocates tell lawmakers therapeutic interventionists, supervised services can cost thousands and escape accountability

Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct urges limits on its role; explains complaint volume and confidentiality rules

Arizona psychology board explains special review process for court-ordered clinicians