The Rise of Judicial Accountability: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied for Children

Because children are not children forever, the court must pay attention to facts...

Prescott, AZ June 22, 2025

The People groan under those who oppress and afflict them. Each of us is built with an inner sense of right & wrong, except of course for the sociopath.

For months, the Arizona Legislature has been holding hearings on family court orders in response to a hue and cry from thousands of families that juris imprudence has allegedly injured. Judges enjoy a level of immunity that has recently been called into question. From election cases and vexatious lawsuits brought in bad faith, to assauts on the civil rights of children, The Bar and indeed the presiding judges in the various courts have been at least asleep on watch, at worst complicit in poor stewardship of “the law.”

I have been asked by agrieved parents from all across America who have tuned in to watch the Arizona Legislature Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders, how do the people get rid of a judge who seems unfit for service because of their activist ways or harsh “justice” that does more harm to the “best interests of children” than good? The options are few, but let’s explore that here.

The Joint Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders [aka the Committee] has met three times and will meet again in August and September. Past hearings may be watched at the State Senate links by date below. Spoiler Alert, the testimoney is breathtaking and at the same time, heartbreaking.

June 16, 2025

May 12, 2025

April 14, 2025

The Committee is taking testimoney to reveal just how bad the situation is and determine solutions that are already in place as well as the best legislative repairs that can be made to the system.

While the law may seem like a dry subject to most, the effects of justice delayed, especially for children, are justice denied!

The fact is that once a man and woman have a child, they are a family forever, regardless of whether they remain together or divorce. The biological father and mother cannot escape that. In some cases domestic abuse, sometimes sexual abuse, by one of the parents (it is not always the biological male) is a factor to be considered when custody and parenting time is an issue.

Ongoing examination…

Due to hundreds of complaints about a Family Court system and the judges who don’t pay attention to evidence but instead rely on “experts” that issues orders seemingly out of touch with reality, the Arizona Legislature convened an inquest panel to hear complaints about cases of alleged injustice. Families who are being bankrupted by the court while “professionals” and “experts” who ignor civil rights of parents and children, and suck away the resources that should be devoted to raising children, enjoy “quasi-judicial immunity” (found nowhere in statute). Children are being separated from their parents by temporary orders instead of finds of fact. In many cases, the court, through a fringe psychology theory known as COBI (Court-Ordered Behavioral Intervention), forces children into “reunification” with an abusive parent, without regard to the evidence of abuse under the notion that 50/50 parenting time is in the “best interests” of the minor.

Evidence? Forget about it…

It is said that a lawyer can argue the facts or argue the law, and when it comes to the law, it is their tradecraft to poke holes in the legislative intent of the law. In Arizona, the Legislature was pretty clear when it adopted a public policy that the court appears to ignore.

Under A.R.S. § 25-403. Legal decision-making; best interests of child, the Family Court is supposed to consider…

A. The court shall determine legal decision-making and parenting time, either originally or on petition for modification, in accordance with the best interests of the child. The court shall consider all factors that are relevant to the child's physical and emotional well-being, including:

1. The past, present and potential future relationship between the parent and the child.

2. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parent or parents, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest.

3. The child's adjustment to home, school and community.

4. If the child is of suitable age and maturity, the wishes of the child as to legal decision-making and parenting time.

5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved.

6. Which parent is more likely to allow the child frequent, meaningful and continuing contact with the other parent. This paragraph does not apply if the court determines that a parent is acting in good faith to protect the child from witnessing an act of domestic violence or being a victim of domestic violence or child abuse.

7. Whether one parent intentionally misled the court to cause an unnecessary delay, to increase the cost of litigation or to persuade the court to give a legal decision-making or a parenting time preference to that parent.

8. Whether there has been domestic violence or child abuse pursuant to section 25-403.03.

9. The nature and extent of coercion or duress used by a parent in obtaining an agreement regarding legal decision-making or parenting time.

10. Whether a parent has complied with chapter 3, article 5 of this title.

11. Whether either parent was convicted of an act of false reporting of child abuse or neglect under section 13-2907.02.

B. In a contested legal decision-making or parenting time case, the court shall make specific findings on the record about all relevant factors and the reasons for which the decision is in the best interests of the child.

This is a very straight-forward approach, or so it would seem.

But wait, the Court has to interpret the law…

You are already way ahead of the reasoning I present if you have observed no “notwithstanding” language in this statute. In a case that can only be described as judicial butt-covering to us non-lawyers, the Arizona Court of Appeals let a judge off the hook for not considering factors that directly affect the best interests of the child because the order was only temporary, and in so doing, created new public policy that eviserates the plain language of the law. Justice denied.

The fact is, the court can keep a “temporary” order in place until the minor child ages out of the court, and the judge no longer has jurisdiction. That was never the intent or the spirit of the law.

In the case of GUTIERREZ v. HON. FOX/KIVLIGHN, Petition for Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. FC2016-009529, the Court of Appeals denied relief citing, “[s]tatutory findings under A.R.S. § 25-403 are not mandatory when determining temporary orders under A.R.S. § 25-404;” With that statement, the Appeals Court chose expediency and the protection of a judge over the best interests of a child by claiming that there is no need to consider the evidence when issuing a temporary order that may include who gets custody of a minor child because after aol, it’s only temporary. Welcome to the world of absurd.

The Appeals Court abandoned the unambiguous law, under A.R.S. § 25-403, Sec. B, and then claims that the Leislature was not specific enough.

But wait, the plot thickens, in United States v. Skrmetti, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), No. 23–477, SCOTUS ruled against the court becoming a “super-legislature” and blocked the consideration of ideologically driven fringe medical theory concerning sex-changes for children, because of permanent damage to the child, which runs tangential to the fringe psychiatric theory commonly known a COBI and forced reunification.