Witnesses urge Arizona lawmakers to adopt federal 'Cadence' protections for parents and children

Kathy Sherlock, the mother of Caden Mancuso, and Danielle Pollock, policy manager at the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University and a founder of National Safe Parents Organization, told the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders that Arizona should adopt the federal provisions commonly called Cadence Law.

Cadence Law, enacted as part of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization in 2022, sets minimum state-level practices intended to reduce the risk that abusive parents gain unsupervised custody. "Cadence law was passed under the federal law act under VAWA under President Biden in 2022," Kathy Sherlock said as she described the deadly custody dispute that prompted her national advocacy after the murder of her daughter.

The witnesses told lawmakers the federal statute includes four core elements: evidence‑based training for court professionals, a mandatory review of past and present evidence of abuse, stricter standards for expert testimony (limited to clinicians with substantial, hands‑on experience), and limits on court‑ordered "reunification" or other forced therapies unless the treatment can be shown to be safe and effective.

Danielle Pollock described the federal incentive structure and the policy rationale. "When Congress did this, they authorized $25,000,000 to incentivize states to adopt these provisions to help protect children and improve court practices and protocols," she said. Pollock said 10 states had adopted the Cadence provisions since Congress enacted them and urged Arizona lawmakers to follow suit because child custody remains a state responsibility.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several policy details. Representative Fink asked for the primary drivers that allow courts to place children at risk; Sherlock answered bluntly that money drives the industry of private evaluations and services: "It all comes down to money ... It's a billion dollar business in this country." Lawmakers also asked about how Cadence interacts with proposals to create presumptions of equal parenting time; witnesses said Cadence is not itself a presumption bill but requires courts to put abuse findings in writing and to document why a judge reaches a decision that departs from abuse evidence.

Several lawmakers sought the empirical basis for the federal findings. Pollock agreed to provide the committee with the citations and supporting studies for the congressional findings when asked by a legislator to do so.

Why it matters: proponents said Cadence creates enforceable, state‑level guardrails that require courts to consider abuse evidence, limit the use of unregulated "reunification" programs, and raise standards for expert witnesses. Opponents and some stakeholders (not present in the hearing) have questioned how the new standards will interact with existing state statutes and court practices.

What’s next: Pollock told the committee she provides technical assistance to state lawmakers and offered to supply the committee with the empirical references cited in the federal findings. Committee members asked staff to continue tracking the federal incentive funding and to coordinate follow‑up with the witnesses.

"I am originator of Cadence Law," Pollock said, describing her role in drafting the model language and working with states on adoption.