Reply to “Arizona’s Family Court Crisis” – A System That Should Make Us All Sick
Julie,
Thank you for your powerful and devastating coverage of Arizona’s family court crisis. As someone who has spent years in the trenches of family court — not as a licensed attorney but as a mother forced to become her own advocate — I read this article with a painful mix of solidarity, sorrow, and outright disgust.
What happened to Sophia Clever and the many other families who bravely testified isn’t just horrifying — it’s criminal. The weaponization of "parental alienation," the economic exploitation of desperate parents, and the outright dismissal of abuse evidence are not judicial errors. They are systemic abuses that hide behind court decorum and legal jargon while permanently destroying families.
The term “ransom” is right — because that’s what it is. Forcing families to choose between feeding their children or funding court-appointed evaluators with unchecked power is not just unethical; it's inhumane. That a judge can order a second mortgage on a protective parent’s home — to pay the fees of the very people harming her children — is something I still can’t read without my blood boiling.
And what’s worse is how familiar this all sounds. These are not isolated stories. Connecticut. California. Oregon. Now Arizona. The states may change, but the pattern is the same: court insiders get rich while protective parents are silenced, criminalized, and bankrupted — all under the guise of “the child’s best interests.”
Sophia’s testimony pierced through the institutional fog with the kind of clarity only truth can carry. That a 15-year-old had to be the voice of reason in a courtroom of professionals should shake this country to its core. And it should be a wake-up call for every legislator, journalist, and citizen who still wants to believe the family court system is working.
It’s not.
The courage of these parents and children must be matched with action. Reform is no longer enough. We need a full-blown reckoning — with oversight, consequences, and the kind of sweeping legislative change that finally puts an end to this taxpayer-funded abuse.
Thank you for giving these families a platform. Please don’t stop. The court may try to silence us — but with voices like yours amplifying ours, they won’t succeed.
To speak more accurately about the custody crisis, We must acknowledge that women (and children) are being primarily targeted and harmed by Family Court. Everyone wants to fight for children's rights. They have the right to grow up in a single stable home and not be subjected to a tug of war or conflict for their entire childhood. They deserve for their parents to have prosperity and invest in their future. That room was full of WOMEN, not men.
Family Court = Corruption! A judge in Florida threw me out of my house and onto the street. I am a mother of 4 minor children. I was married to one of the richest men in Florida! My ex was represented by a team of 6 lawyers and accountants. I was without a lawyer because I ran out of money to finance a lawyer who also scammed me. Everything was sold in advance and it was all one big show. My ex spent more than 3 million dollars in 5 years just to destroy me and the court helped him. Stay away from the court. You will definitely not find justice there! But you will find corruption big time.
This hearing was extraordinary and long overdue. The testimonies exposed exactly what so many parents, children, and professionals have been warning about for years: a system that ignores evidence, rewards control, punishes protection, and funnels families into a profit-driven network of evaluators, TIs, and reunification programs with almost no oversight. As someone who works in this field, none of these patterns are surprising, but seeing lawmakers finally listen, question judicial authority, and acknowledge the human cost is a critical step. What happened in Arizona should be a national wake-up call.
This is happening to a friend of mine! Judge forcing Forensic therapy because dad said she was crazy! He is testing positive for cocaine while she is negative! She gets four hours a week visitation and has to pay for a monitor to watch her with her child! She has been to the doctor in his care 20 times (that we have proof of) in 3 months. Different people always dropping her off, never the dad.
The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal", VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348,41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945,540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
May 11, 1999: Macomb County Circuit Court, (Judge #2) Chief Judge Maceroni:
MACERONI: Consent judgment of annulment, what is your issue regarding it?
CHRISTINE: The validity of it. I never consented or signed that, and neither did my attorney.
MACERONI: Your attorney did.
CHRISTINE: He said to form only, not content (rights).
MACERONI: Ms. Morrison, you are objecting to items that have been entered almost two years ago, and that’s entitled to consent Judgment of Annulment.
CHRISTINE: Not without a signature.
MACERONI: That was approved as to form only (not the content of rights), and as far as Mr. Aiello was concerned and signed by Mr. Perakis, and if there was any problem with that, it should have been appealed a long time ago.
With all due respect, to state that "nothing will be done" assumes that we haven't already witnessed success. In Arizona we have identified solutions for "incremental change," focusing on the most vulnerable head of the 3-headed Family Court snake - the "forensic providers."
In Arizona, these licensees do not enjoy the same protections as judges and attorneys. Their mental health license plainly prohibits the very behaviors the AZ Family Court system is built upon. We have a bill before the legislature now that prohibits their involvement in custody matters; just in the months since the bill was introduced, we are already seeing several egregious custody rulings reversed by judges that are clearly hoping to "clean up" their bench record. These ruling reversals represent positive change for actual child(ren).
HB2256 is only a part of the enormous efforts that are resulting in positive change for many other children. Arizona is now at the center of a national discussion about the critical need for family court reform. Our advocacy is making a difference here. It is not easy. It has been slow and, at times, seemingly hopeless. But no one ever made change by taking the position that "nothing will be done." This will take herculean efforts, but our children need us.
The judges absolutely will do what they want and they have. I was under an order of protection, and with a bogus complaint to the judge, the abuser gained access to the home. He stated by any means necessary. And the judge in Pinal County was silly enough to sign it.
#truth here:
🛑 Domestic Violence & Fourth Amendment Tensions
🚔 Arrests Without Warrants
• ARS §13-3601 allows officers to arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe DV occurred—even if they didn’t witness it.
• This hinges on Fourth Amendment exceptions like exigent circumstances or public safety, but it’s often abused when probable cause is thin or based on biased reporting.
🏠 Home Entry
• Officers may enter a home without a warrant if they believe someone is in danger. But in Pinal County, survivors have reported forced entry without clear justification, raising Fourth Amendment concerns.
• Your advocacy could push for body cam mandates, incident documentation, and civilian oversight to curb unlawful entries.
So that is what I will do. I have a meeting at the end of next month with one of our representatives.
But I’m just getting started.
We are number four in the nation for domestic violence. Makes AZ so desirable to live in.
Come out to the I10, exit 200! Pinal County Supports Domestic Violence Abusers!
“What emerged was a raw and unfiltered glimpse into a system accused of devastating families under the guise of justice.” Interesting statement, and I urge you to continue reporting with eyes wide open, not with such acute misfocus.
With regards to one of the persons you quoted: you didn’t quote a victim, you quoted the person who spent years defying court orders, blocking co-parenting, and destroying a once-healthy other-parent & child relationship. The quoted individual was given every opportunity to comply with the multiple court-ordered co-parenting arrangements and repeatedly chose not to do so. For over four years, following more than a decade of similar conduct, they defied orders, obstructed communication. They denied the minor child contact with the other normal-range healthy parent for nearly two years. This was not the behavior of the self-proclaimed victim; it was a calculated pattern: fabricating abuse claims, filing repeated petitions for sole custody, and attempting to strip the co-parent of constitutional and civil rights. When the court rejected the quoted individual’s motions for lack of evidence and issued reprimands, the defiance escalated—driving up costs they now portray as unjust.
Nearly two years after a false “emergency” motion, and after dozens of hearings, the court issued a 90-day no-contact order. It was not an arbitrary whim of one judge; it was a last resort by the court to protect the child and the other parent's relationship. It was the outcome after years of noncompliance and open disregard for the law by your quoted individual. The court reviewed the 90-day order every 30–45 days, providing repeated opportunities to end it early by cooperating. The individual never did, and the situation escalated even further. Claiming the resulting 11-month separation was “unjust” is a blatant distortion of 14 years of facts, and it was entirely self-inflicted by the individual you chose to quote.
The only things this person fell victim to were the consequences of their own defiance, actions, and generational repetitive patterns.
And
There is a deep concern that the committee allowed the participation of the 15-year-old minor who recited detailed financial data regarding her mother’s legal expenses—information that should never be shared with a child under Family Court standards. Many of the Orders issued by the Family Court include this paragraph: *Neither parent shall discuss the legal proceedings with the children, and both parents shall ensure that no one else in their household does so. Both parents shall also ensure that the child has no access to documents related to the legal proceedings.
The disclosure you heard and felt compelled to repeat reflects a troubling misuse of the child in what appears to be a high-conflict custody battle, and a serious violation of ethical parenting. Instead of commending her and encouraging her to “keep fighting,” the committee should have expressed concern over the inappropriateness of her involvement in adult financial and legal matters. She should have been encouraged to work through the TI process and seek healing relationships with both parents. After all, it is a rite of passage for teens to experience conflict with their parents. Parents serve a vital purpose in their child’s life, even when the parents no longer live together.
I strongly suggest that, before reprinting falsehoods or poor parenting practices, you check the record, or if you are going to print quotes, don’t use the ones that are delivered out of context or in spite. You have a form that can drive positive change; perhaps you can embrace it for such.
“What emerged was a raw and unfiltered glimpse into a system accused of devastating families under the guise of justice.” Interesting statement, and I urge you to continue reporting with eyes wide open, not with such acute misfocus.
With regards to one of the persons you quoted: you didn’t quote a victim, you quoted the person who spent years defying court orders, blocking co-parenting, and destroying a once-healthy other-parent & child relationship. After refusing every court-offered path to reunification, the quoted individual now calls the outcome “unjust.” The truth? The only things this person fell victim to were the consequences of their own defiance.
The quoted individual was given every opportunity to comply with the multiple court-ordered co-parenting arrangements and repeatedly chose not to do so. For over four years, following more than a decade of similar conduct, they defied orders, obstructed communication. They denied the minor child contact with the other normal-range healthy parent for nearly two years.
This was not the behavior of the self-proclaimed victim; it was a calculated pattern: fabricating abuse claims, filing repeated petitions for sole custody, and attempting to strip the co-parent of constitutional and civil rights. When the court rejected the quoted individual’s motions for lack of evidence and issued reprimands, the defiance escalated—driving up costs they now portray as unjust.
Nearly two years after a false “emergency” motion, and after dozens of hearings, the court issued a 90-day no-contact order. It was not an arbitrary whim of one judge; it was a last resort by the court to protect the child and the other parent's relationship. It was the outcome after years of noncompliance and open disregard for the law by your quoted individual. Multiple reunification and co-parenting programs (Reunification, TI, COBI, IFT) were offered. All were rejected even when ordered. The court reviewed the 90-day order every 30–45 days, providing repeated opportunities to end it early by cooperating. The individual never did, and the situation escalated even further. Claiming the resulting 11-month separation was “unjust” is a blatant distortion of 14 years of facts, and it was entirely self-inflicted by the individual you chose to quote. Claiming “A qualified provider later resolved the case for $2,400 in just three weeks” was an absolute fabrication, as the child aged out in 3 weeks and the billing stopped, but the quoter’s issues and destruction continued.
The only things this person fell victim to were the consequences of their own defiance, actions, and generational repetitive patterns.
And
There is a deep that the committee allowed the participation of the 15-year-old minor who recited detailed financial data regarding her mother’s $550,000 in legal expenses—information that should never be shared with a child under Family Court standards. Many of the Orders issued by the Family Court include this paragraph:
*Neither parent shall discuss the legal proceedings with the children, and both parents shall ensure that no one else in their household does so. Both parents shall also ensure that the child has no access to documents related to the legal proceedings.
The disclosure you heard and felt compelled to repeat reflects a troubling misuse of the child in what appears to be a high-conflict custody battle, and a serious violation of ethical parenting. Instead of commending her and encouraging her to “keep fighting,” the committee should have expressed concern over the inappropriateness of her involvement in adult financial and legal matters. She should have been encouraged to work through the TI process and seek healing relationships with both parents. After all, it is a rite of passage for teens to experience conflict with their parents. Parents serve a vital purpose in their child’s life, even when the parents no longer live together or function correctly as a unit.
I strongly suggest that, before reprinting falsehoods or poor parenting practices, you check the record, or if you are going to print quotes, don’t use the ones that are delivered out of context or in spite. You have a form that can drive positive change; perhaps you can embrace it for such.
Reply to “Arizona’s Family Court Crisis” – A System That Should Make Us All Sick
Julie,
Thank you for your powerful and devastating coverage of Arizona’s family court crisis. As someone who has spent years in the trenches of family court — not as a licensed attorney but as a mother forced to become her own advocate — I read this article with a painful mix of solidarity, sorrow, and outright disgust.
What happened to Sophia Clever and the many other families who bravely testified isn’t just horrifying — it’s criminal. The weaponization of "parental alienation," the economic exploitation of desperate parents, and the outright dismissal of abuse evidence are not judicial errors. They are systemic abuses that hide behind court decorum and legal jargon while permanently destroying families.
The term “ransom” is right — because that’s what it is. Forcing families to choose between feeding their children or funding court-appointed evaluators with unchecked power is not just unethical; it's inhumane. That a judge can order a second mortgage on a protective parent’s home — to pay the fees of the very people harming her children — is something I still can’t read without my blood boiling.
And what’s worse is how familiar this all sounds. These are not isolated stories. Connecticut. California. Oregon. Now Arizona. The states may change, but the pattern is the same: court insiders get rich while protective parents are silenced, criminalized, and bankrupted — all under the guise of “the child’s best interests.”
Sophia’s testimony pierced through the institutional fog with the kind of clarity only truth can carry. That a 15-year-old had to be the voice of reason in a courtroom of professionals should shake this country to its core. And it should be a wake-up call for every legislator, journalist, and citizen who still wants to believe the family court system is working.
It’s not.
The courage of these parents and children must be matched with action. Reform is no longer enough. We need a full-blown reckoning — with oversight, consequences, and the kind of sweeping legislative change that finally puts an end to this taxpayer-funded abuse.
Thank you for giving these families a platform. Please don’t stop. The court may try to silence us — but with voices like yours amplifying ours, they won’t succeed.
In solidarity and shared outrage, Margaret
You nailed it. Amen. Thank you Margaret. 💔
Thank you for sharing this!
Women Coalition International is fighting Family Court abuses.
To speak more accurately about the custody crisis, We must acknowledge that women (and children) are being primarily targeted and harmed by Family Court. Everyone wants to fight for children's rights. They have the right to grow up in a single stable home and not be subjected to a tug of war or conflict for their entire childhood. They deserve for their parents to have prosperity and invest in their future. That room was full of WOMEN, not men.
Please read, sign, & share in support of #Accountability and #Oversight in the family courts: https://app.jotform.com/251046136881153
Thank you for reporting on this evil behavior taking place in the Probate Courts .
Norfolk Probate Court in Massachusetts trafficked myself and my children in a disgusting Cult !
Karma is coming for all of them 🔥🙏
Family Court = Corruption! A judge in Florida threw me out of my house and onto the street. I am a mother of 4 minor children. I was married to one of the richest men in Florida! My ex was represented by a team of 6 lawyers and accountants. I was without a lawyer because I ran out of money to finance a lawyer who also scammed me. Everything was sold in advance and it was all one big show. My ex spent more than 3 million dollars in 5 years just to destroy me and the court helped him. Stay away from the court. You will definitely not find justice there! But you will find corruption big time.
This hearing was extraordinary and long overdue. The testimonies exposed exactly what so many parents, children, and professionals have been warning about for years: a system that ignores evidence, rewards control, punishes protection, and funnels families into a profit-driven network of evaluators, TIs, and reunification programs with almost no oversight. As someone who works in this field, none of these patterns are surprising, but seeing lawmakers finally listen, question judicial authority, and acknowledge the human cost is a critical step. What happened in Arizona should be a national wake-up call.
This is happening to a friend of mine! Judge forcing Forensic therapy because dad said she was crazy! He is testing positive for cocaine while she is negative! She gets four hours a week visitation and has to pay for a monitor to watch her with her child! She has been to the doctor in his care 20 times (that we have proof of) in 3 months. Different people always dropping her off, never the dad.
Michigan Family Court Judges Enter NO CONSENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS @www.judicialcriminal.com
The law is well-settled that a void order or judgement is void even before reversal", VALLEY v. NORTHERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., 254 U.S. 348,41 S. Ct. 116 (1920) "Courts are constituted by authority and they cannot go beyond that power delegated to them. If they act beyond that authority, and certainly in contravention of it, their judgements and orders are regarded as nullities; they are not voidable, but simply void, and this even prior to reversal." WILLIAMSON v. BERRY, 8 HOW. 945,540 12 L. Ed. 1170, 1189 (1850).
May 11, 1999: Macomb County Circuit Court, (Judge #2) Chief Judge Maceroni:
MACERONI: Consent judgment of annulment, what is your issue regarding it?
CHRISTINE: The validity of it. I never consented or signed that, and neither did my attorney.
MACERONI: Your attorney did.
CHRISTINE: He said to form only, not content (rights).
MACERONI: Ms. Morrison, you are objecting to items that have been entered almost two years ago, and that’s entitled to consent Judgment of Annulment.
CHRISTINE: Not without a signature.
MACERONI: That was approved as to form only (not the content of rights), and as far as Mr. Aiello was concerned and signed by Mr. Perakis, and if there was any problem with that, it should have been appealed a long time ago.
CHRISTINE: I never consented.
How many more “meetings” like this do we have to endure before we all collectively admit that absolutely nothing will be done!?
And you damn well know it…
With all due respect, to state that "nothing will be done" assumes that we haven't already witnessed success. In Arizona we have identified solutions for "incremental change," focusing on the most vulnerable head of the 3-headed Family Court snake - the "forensic providers."
In Arizona, these licensees do not enjoy the same protections as judges and attorneys. Their mental health license plainly prohibits the very behaviors the AZ Family Court system is built upon. We have a bill before the legislature now that prohibits their involvement in custody matters; just in the months since the bill was introduced, we are already seeing several egregious custody rulings reversed by judges that are clearly hoping to "clean up" their bench record. These ruling reversals represent positive change for actual child(ren).
HB2256 is only a part of the enormous efforts that are resulting in positive change for many other children. Arizona is now at the center of a national discussion about the critical need for family court reform. Our advocacy is making a difference here. It is not easy. It has been slow and, at times, seemingly hopeless. But no one ever made change by taking the position that "nothing will be done." This will take herculean efforts, but our children need us.
The judges absolutely will do what they want and they have. I was under an order of protection, and with a bogus complaint to the judge, the abuser gained access to the home. He stated by any means necessary. And the judge in Pinal County was silly enough to sign it.
#truth here:
🛑 Domestic Violence & Fourth Amendment Tensions
🚔 Arrests Without Warrants
• ARS §13-3601 allows officers to arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe DV occurred—even if they didn’t witness it.
• This hinges on Fourth Amendment exceptions like exigent circumstances or public safety, but it’s often abused when probable cause is thin or based on biased reporting.
🏠 Home Entry
• Officers may enter a home without a warrant if they believe someone is in danger. But in Pinal County, survivors have reported forced entry without clear justification, raising Fourth Amendment concerns.
• Your advocacy could push for body cam mandates, incident documentation, and civilian oversight to curb unlawful entries.
So that is what I will do. I have a meeting at the end of next month with one of our representatives.
But I’m just getting started.
We are number four in the nation for domestic violence. Makes AZ so desirable to live in.
Come out to the I10, exit 200! Pinal County Supports Domestic Violence Abusers!
https://c.org/HpyXjSnyrk
Just makes me shudder. As a Pinal resident and DV survivor in that county, I’m floored. https://c.org/HpyXjSnyrk
“What emerged was a raw and unfiltered glimpse into a system accused of devastating families under the guise of justice.” Interesting statement, and I urge you to continue reporting with eyes wide open, not with such acute misfocus.
With regards to one of the persons you quoted: you didn’t quote a victim, you quoted the person who spent years defying court orders, blocking co-parenting, and destroying a once-healthy other-parent & child relationship. The quoted individual was given every opportunity to comply with the multiple court-ordered co-parenting arrangements and repeatedly chose not to do so. For over four years, following more than a decade of similar conduct, they defied orders, obstructed communication. They denied the minor child contact with the other normal-range healthy parent for nearly two years. This was not the behavior of the self-proclaimed victim; it was a calculated pattern: fabricating abuse claims, filing repeated petitions for sole custody, and attempting to strip the co-parent of constitutional and civil rights. When the court rejected the quoted individual’s motions for lack of evidence and issued reprimands, the defiance escalated—driving up costs they now portray as unjust.
Nearly two years after a false “emergency” motion, and after dozens of hearings, the court issued a 90-day no-contact order. It was not an arbitrary whim of one judge; it was a last resort by the court to protect the child and the other parent's relationship. It was the outcome after years of noncompliance and open disregard for the law by your quoted individual. The court reviewed the 90-day order every 30–45 days, providing repeated opportunities to end it early by cooperating. The individual never did, and the situation escalated even further. Claiming the resulting 11-month separation was “unjust” is a blatant distortion of 14 years of facts, and it was entirely self-inflicted by the individual you chose to quote.
The only things this person fell victim to were the consequences of their own defiance, actions, and generational repetitive patterns.
And
There is a deep concern that the committee allowed the participation of the 15-year-old minor who recited detailed financial data regarding her mother’s legal expenses—information that should never be shared with a child under Family Court standards. Many of the Orders issued by the Family Court include this paragraph: *Neither parent shall discuss the legal proceedings with the children, and both parents shall ensure that no one else in their household does so. Both parents shall also ensure that the child has no access to documents related to the legal proceedings.
The disclosure you heard and felt compelled to repeat reflects a troubling misuse of the child in what appears to be a high-conflict custody battle, and a serious violation of ethical parenting. Instead of commending her and encouraging her to “keep fighting,” the committee should have expressed concern over the inappropriateness of her involvement in adult financial and legal matters. She should have been encouraged to work through the TI process and seek healing relationships with both parents. After all, it is a rite of passage for teens to experience conflict with their parents. Parents serve a vital purpose in their child’s life, even when the parents no longer live together.
I strongly suggest that, before reprinting falsehoods or poor parenting practices, you check the record, or if you are going to print quotes, don’t use the ones that are delivered out of context or in spite. You have a form that can drive positive change; perhaps you can embrace it for such.
“What emerged was a raw and unfiltered glimpse into a system accused of devastating families under the guise of justice.” Interesting statement, and I urge you to continue reporting with eyes wide open, not with such acute misfocus.
With regards to one of the persons you quoted: you didn’t quote a victim, you quoted the person who spent years defying court orders, blocking co-parenting, and destroying a once-healthy other-parent & child relationship. After refusing every court-offered path to reunification, the quoted individual now calls the outcome “unjust.” The truth? The only things this person fell victim to were the consequences of their own defiance.
The quoted individual was given every opportunity to comply with the multiple court-ordered co-parenting arrangements and repeatedly chose not to do so. For over four years, following more than a decade of similar conduct, they defied orders, obstructed communication. They denied the minor child contact with the other normal-range healthy parent for nearly two years.
This was not the behavior of the self-proclaimed victim; it was a calculated pattern: fabricating abuse claims, filing repeated petitions for sole custody, and attempting to strip the co-parent of constitutional and civil rights. When the court rejected the quoted individual’s motions for lack of evidence and issued reprimands, the defiance escalated—driving up costs they now portray as unjust.
Nearly two years after a false “emergency” motion, and after dozens of hearings, the court issued a 90-day no-contact order. It was not an arbitrary whim of one judge; it was a last resort by the court to protect the child and the other parent's relationship. It was the outcome after years of noncompliance and open disregard for the law by your quoted individual. Multiple reunification and co-parenting programs (Reunification, TI, COBI, IFT) were offered. All were rejected even when ordered. The court reviewed the 90-day order every 30–45 days, providing repeated opportunities to end it early by cooperating. The individual never did, and the situation escalated even further. Claiming the resulting 11-month separation was “unjust” is a blatant distortion of 14 years of facts, and it was entirely self-inflicted by the individual you chose to quote. Claiming “A qualified provider later resolved the case for $2,400 in just three weeks” was an absolute fabrication, as the child aged out in 3 weeks and the billing stopped, but the quoter’s issues and destruction continued.
The only things this person fell victim to were the consequences of their own defiance, actions, and generational repetitive patterns.
And
There is a deep that the committee allowed the participation of the 15-year-old minor who recited detailed financial data regarding her mother’s $550,000 in legal expenses—information that should never be shared with a child under Family Court standards. Many of the Orders issued by the Family Court include this paragraph:
*Neither parent shall discuss the legal proceedings with the children, and both parents shall ensure that no one else in their household does so. Both parents shall also ensure that the child has no access to documents related to the legal proceedings.
The disclosure you heard and felt compelled to repeat reflects a troubling misuse of the child in what appears to be a high-conflict custody battle, and a serious violation of ethical parenting. Instead of commending her and encouraging her to “keep fighting,” the committee should have expressed concern over the inappropriateness of her involvement in adult financial and legal matters. She should have been encouraged to work through the TI process and seek healing relationships with both parents. After all, it is a rite of passage for teens to experience conflict with their parents. Parents serve a vital purpose in their child’s life, even when the parents no longer live together or function correctly as a unit.
I strongly suggest that, before reprinting falsehoods or poor parenting practices, you check the record, or if you are going to print quotes, don’t use the ones that are delivered out of context or in spite. You have a form that can drive positive change; perhaps you can embrace it for such.
I'm glad to see these stories gain more traction as our movement grows. Thank you for all your hard work that goes into these articles.