Parents, lawyers and advocates describe repeated failures in family court and DCS during committee public comment

A long series of public witnesses described to the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders a range of problems they say affect family courts and child‑welfare practice, including high litigation costs, alleged biased or unregulated evaluators, claims that judges and third‑party evaluators ignored evidence of danger, and concerns about quasi‑judicial immunity for third‑party experts.

Trial lawyer Michael Moore, who said he represents families in civil rights actions against child‑welfare agencies, opened the public comment segment by telling the committee: "I appear here today to attempt to convince you all to put me out of work." Moore and other litigators argued the system produces repeated constitutional violations and said that taxpayer payouts to settle cases against child‑welfare agencies have been substantial.

Parents described lengthy and costly legal fights. Brad Brock, a father, said he spent about $200,000 and that DCS and family‑court actors had not acted on drug‑exposure evidence he brought to the system. "I have everything to prove to substantiate my testimony," he told the committee.

Other witnesses described disputed custody evaluations, alleged falsified or misleading guardian ad litem reports, and what they called financial incentives that reward prolonged litigation. Mary Betsold described a court‑appointed evaluator whose written findings she said were inconsistent with the therapist notes she provided; she said the evaluator recommended supervised parenting despite her progress in therapy.

Multiple witnesses raised concerns about the role of third‑party professionals. Danielle Pollock earlier in the hearing had criticized the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) as a membership organization whose conferences and professional networks can shape policy and practice; public witnesses echoed concerns that evaluators, guardians and certain service providers operate with little licensing oversight and may be compensated by the parties who hire them.

Representatives of fathers’ rights and survivor communities both spoke. Doctor Adrian Polkerbeck cautioned the committee not to assume fathers are abusers and cited studies he said show unequal parenting time correlates with a range of downstream risks for children; Autumn Manelik, a survivor and podcaster, said she had spent more than $150,000 on attorneys before representing herself and called family court "a circus" and urged licensing and oversight of paid evaluators and visitation supervisors.

Several witnesses named judges, court‑appointed professionals, or evaluators they said produced biased or falsified records. In multiple on‑the‑record examples, speakers identified local judges and professionals by name and asked for legislative or rule‑making remedies to improve accountability and transparency. Michael Moore recommended the committee consider mechanisms to remove quasi‑judicial immunity or otherwise increase accountability for third‑party evaluators and guardians.

Why it matters: these first‑hand accounts underscore the policy questions the committee is weighing — how to balance protection of parental rights, child safety, and the professional practices that support court decision‑making.

What’s next: committee members said they will collect written testimony and follow up with witnesses. Some legislators expressed interest in drafting reforms that address evaluator licensing, document production from DCS to family courts, and accountability for evaluators and guardians ad litem.

Representative Kessel, who led the hearing, told witnesses staff will compile the written testimony for the committee’s report and that legislative working groups will consider statutory and rule changes in the coming session.