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

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.