The Quinfecta of Family Court – Maricopa Superior Court [and others]

?????????There is an alarming and concerning trend in Maricopa County Superior Court – Family Law Division. ?As a litigant, I hope you thoroughly research if you represent yourself, and if you seek or have legal counsel, you comprehensively discuss these things with your qualified experts, attorneys, and others with knowledge, especially concerning any consideration of COBI and/or TPFF in your Action.??With professional intensity, dive deep into your attorney’s, Expert, or others’ actual professional knowledge of these programs.??Regardless if you are the ‘alleged’ alienated or alienating parent, blindly agreeing to, assuming, or confidently believing that these people thoroughly understand COBI and TPFF is not the wisest position to take, especially when it comes to your children’s mental and physical health.?Also, consider the actual economic resource these behavioral health models consume and the results it does not deliver.

?????????1.??????Judges - It has already been established by the Judges in Arizona, through a self-reporting survey, ?that many feel they need to be properly ‘more’ trained, more prepared, and maybe even more qualified to work in Family Court.?Historically the Arizona Judicial Counsel (“AJC”) has constantly had to address and attempt to manage this and other unique problems, issues, and concerns arising in the Family Court division.?Sadly I believe that in a non-nefarious but unwitting manner, ?these Judges often cause more damage than good in high-conflict cases based on their various reported and acknowledged deficiencies.??These newly appointed judges, often at the influential direction of profit, and business performance professionals,?attempt to make complex Family Court decisions with little if any experience.?Simply put, they are out of their league [or element] but are also saturated in proverbial and leveraged positioning of the tenured Family Court system just coming into the system as a newly appointed Judge. ??

These same Judges often have minimal experience and need a full appreciation for complex family dynamics, and can often, based on lack of competent training and experience, are caught up or induced into a Super Parent role.?This ability to remain emotionally devoid and impartial is further complicated, considering many of the business performance professionals of Family Court are senior, motivated, influential, and can assist in the outcome during Performance Review periods of these newly appointed Superior Court Judges.?There is an incredible amount of case history, both in Arizona and abroad, of how Judges constantly attempt to delegate their Judicial authority to highly overpriced, often unaffordable Experts to give them insight into family dynamics.?There is an obvious and common-sense rationale for why this phenomenon occurs. ?Maricopa County is not an exception.

?????????2.??????Court Order Behavioral Intervention – COBI -?COBI is a recent trend of Maricopa Superior Court delegating its responsibilities, if you would, a spinoff of Rule 74 Parenting Coordinators (“PC’s”), but much more brutal and toxic.?If we go down memory lane, we learn how we were being over-exposed in the use and, in my opinion, abusively, of the frequently appointed and often adversely throttling Parenting Coordinators.?These appointed practitioners attempted to Will people into alleged compliance with implied threats and innuendos of dire consequences.??There was an opinion by (at that time) a sitting Appellate Judge, a sitting Trial Judge, and a few others who supported a drastic change in the Rule to constrict powers and the use of a PC.?The opinion discussed how Experts, Lawyers, and Judges can get caught up in the Super Parent scheme in its belief and activism in trying to cure complex family dynamic problems far beyond the scope and authority of Family Court Judges.?The opinion went on to rightfully allude Family Court plays a limited role, and that limited role needs to be constant of the Judicial officials ruling on cases at a macro level.?It was a good day when extensive and appropriate restrictions were employed to curtail the frequent Ordering of PC’s in Family Court cases without a mutual agreement of the Parties.?We would have thought that this move and decision would have set the foundation for keeping the Family Court to its limited role, as it should be, instead of attempting to expand it into this Super Parent scheme repeatedly.?The ruling Judges should not be emotionally or professionally induced into acting in the capacity of a Super Parent, yet they frequently appear to be.

?????????However, some of the prevailing business performance professionals and Experts (which can easily be intertwined) frequently appointed in Family Court just saw this effort as a nuance obstruction to their ability to exploit means to earn money in this unique industry where adversity harvests profits and resolution diminishes them.?Somehow in February of 2021, a paid-for ‘for hire’ Expert, a Presiding ‘sitting’ Judge, and a “for hire/profit” attorney worked on (to what capacity no one in the free public fully appreciates), a very toxic reunification model which is expensive, and it was named COBI. ?Its peculiar and baneful model specifically targets a common foundation of high-conflict cases and pretentiously appears to right that wrong when in reality and to the glee of continuing and meaningful financial extractions keeps the high-conflict cases high conflict for further toxic exposure and continued financial extraction.

?????????Let’s be very clear right off the bat, COBI is an unvetted, un-peer review, not submitted or endorsed by any known professional academia or organization like the APA.?It is a locally, developed, in secret, for-profit model which targets specific demographics that was somehow thrown into the State annual CLE for Attorneys, Experts, and Judges in the Family Law Division in February of 2021.?From 2021-2023, many Judges and lawyers were promoting this model and admitting they knew nothing about its construction, design, history, effectiveness, etc.?These individuals, it appears,?were specifically promoting this COBI model based on sponsors' name recognition, not any quantified facts that were independently verified or permitted for public review were exercised before its employment on litigants in the Family Court system. ???The model is erroneously being sold/promoted as an inexpensive model that replaces those ‘costly’ custody evaluations, which those, at least on the face, attempted to identify problems before promoting an agenda. ?Both practicing lawyers and Experts were gaining appointments for COBI in Family Court cases with no clear understanding of the underbelly of COBI and how, if at all, it could actually benefit their clients.?Instead, they relied on at least one prestigious Presiding Judge and two for-profit Experts/lawyers as the backbone of their reliance that COBI was/is beneficial, properly vetted, and deployed in good faith.?At this time, I reserve my opinion on those interested people’s motives based on historical dealings.?

We have learned that no one at the Arizona Supreme Court, Appellate Court, or any legislature approved this “for-profit” model to be employed in our Judiciary.?We would also be remiss not to be curious why two for-profit professionals and a Judiciary official participating, somehow, in the development of COBI without a quid-pro-quo or other forms of immediate or deferred compensation, considering COBI is a for-profit model.?Like some legislatures do once they are tenured and retiring from their position in the government.?Although I have zero evidence to support an allegation, common sense, reasonable speculation, and conjecture would make many ponder the same. ??There is a massive concern about how a for-profit Exert of the Court, a Presiding Judge, and a for-profit sitting attorney could successfully employ this expensively structured model without any professional review, conflict test, education material, learning curve, or legislative approval.?

?????????COBI does not care what the complexities or problems are within the family. ?It does not care if the other parent abused a parent [or other people], it does not care if the children were abused, the COBI proctors commence zero evaluations for such concerns or any other mental health or family dynamic issues needing to be addressed first.?It has been reported with credible evidence that COBI proctors even witness domestic violence occurring in these sessions and refuse to report it.?Further, the COBI proctors threatened the parents that they would advise the Court to stop an individual’s parenting time if they did not cooperate with them. ?The designed goal is allegedly to induce/force the Parties into co-parenting.?However, it has already been established that not all parents can co-parent, and forcing such, especially in the manner that COBI operates, is inappropriate and is usually toxic, and to the detriment of the minor children.??Employment of Parallel Parenting Models is probably much more beneficial and less toxic for parents, especially for minor children. ?This type of exploitation, which literally appears unethical and iniquitous, is precisely why so many litigants pursued reducing the powers of Rule 74 – PC appointments; it was harmful to children and families then, and COBI is no different now.?COBI has substantially hurt people. . .?However, the idea of holding this flawed model under that current scheme is impractical between quasi-immunity and the incredibly high cost of suing these COBI individuals for damages and change.?Thus, ‘sadly’ it can survive. ?With this being said, there still is no review on the conflict of interest, self-serving interest, the adversity?COBI is causing children and parents, and how little it is successful and beneficial in the Family Court system.

?????????COBI specifically targets people who have assets, who are emotionally vulnerable, and oftentimes, although during its 2021 CLE, it was sold under the ruse of a very inexpensive model, we have seen financial costs for COBI in excess of $30,000.00 for a?very short period of time for those services rendered.

?????????What makes things worse is that COBI is employed by the Courts, usually pre-final Orders.?Why??Because of recent Appellate and Arizona Supreme Court case decisions, the Trial court, if properly following the procedure, cannot appoint specific Experts as it can during pre-Final Orders.?It is believed most private mental health providers would not touch this model outside of Family Court immunity protections.

?????????3.??????FCIC - In the Fall of 2019, the Arizona Supreme Court Justice of Arizona held its AJC meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona (always a great place to do anything).?During this meeting, the Chief Justice and IMO, with much-expressed outwardly concern, communicated how few people have confidence in the professional dealings of the Judiciary, that confidence is less than 8%, collectively that is all of our faults who work the field . . .?If we are a?Judge, Lawyer, Expert, Paralegal, LDP, LP, Clerk, etc., if we are causing a 92% disapproval rating to the people we serve, yeah, “Houston, we have a problem.”

?????????In this same year, the Chief Justice, through Administrative Order, directed the creation of the Family Court Improvement Committee (“FCIC”). ?Unfortunately, it has the same structures and even some of the same people as the Domestic Relations?Committee (“DRC”), which was disbanded for multiple reasons around 2011-12, including that it was used, in part, by special interest in a failed attempt to get COBS passed through the Judiciary rather than the legislation; COBS was a new child support model. ?Ironically, some people vested in COBS are current participants in the creation of COBI, a problematic model introduced in our Judiciary without peer review or a vetting process about ten (10) years ago. Here we go again.

?????????Once again, we have seen the FCIC actively at work, creating many sub-committees, patting themselves on the back for their work, including a new model to help decide Spousal Maintenance.?However, like the DRC, there needs to be more responsiveness to the actual needs of the average litigant, instead focusing on programs and things that promote the conducting of business in the Family Court arena.

?????????However, with the insistence, based on at least Minute Entry and notes, the FCIC has moved to create Rule 81 – Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.?The advocating for this?Rule change is a ruse, in my opinion, that is malicious in design and absolutely a nefarious workaround from the resolution employed to curtail Rule 74 abuses, as well as recent Case Law by the Appellate and Supreme Court addressing the same.??Rule 81 is a workaround for exploring the appointment of Post-Decree ‘costly’ Experts, IMO.?The patronizing attitude of the Committee thumbing its nose to historical precedence in our system is nothing but a supercilious group of people believing they have been annotated to decide how best to manage our families over us.

?????????IMO, the FCIC, in its current form, substantially works just like the dysfunctional DRC, which was ultimately disbanded.?I do not blame the Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice for wanting to believe we need a better system; we do.?As a matter of fact, I applaud him for seeing a problem and seeking a solution.?The problem is that he has been relying on the same people for the past twenty years who have yet to bring meaningful reform to benefit the litigants of Family Court. ?Instead, these Committees have been much better at serving those conducting business in the Family Court arena, their actual or perceived constituency.

?????????4.??????Rule 81 – This is a proposed Rule, and I hope lawyers, other Judges (just like Rule 74), and litigants strongly protest the acceptance, deployment, and employment of Rule 81.?I would also highly appreciate the FCIC being highly admonished for making this work-around proposal.?The Rule will be used as a tool for the Courts to appoint expensive Experts post Decree under the Judiciary [sic] powers of discretion and observe families under the two frequently used but exhaustingly confusing “Pole Star” and “Best Interest” standards and doctrine.?It was pushed through the FCIC by a Presiding Judge, the same one who, ten (10) years earlier, attempted to use the COBS Committee to pass an unvetted, non-peer review Child Support Model which appears, if successful, to be a devastating model to the people of Arizona. ?Luckily it failed to gain the confidence of the Judiciary and legislatures based solely on the peaceful, robust protest and rejection of it by Arizonians. ?The vested interest holders of COBS were furious that people were challenging it, and they promised us that we were clueless about how beneficial it would be for Arizonians.?Ultimately with substantial controversy brought by the Chair of COBS, it was defeated in Arizona, and this great child support model has not been used, proposed, or exercised in any other State in the United States or the Free World.

?????????Currently, the Courts, IMO, are already abusing parents and children with COBI, and now these same Judges, as admitted by them, are issuing orders for a program called Turning Points for Families (“TPFF”).?Guess what, it is not only an unvetted, un-peer-reviewed,?unsponsored model, but it is also very expensive.??Here is what is so concerning, many of the proctors, in what I assert is a punitive remedy when COBI does not work, recommend this program, which removes the minor child from the alleged Alienating Parent and forces them to the Alienated Parents again with no evaluation, no family dynamics evaluation, but just angry Super Parent Judges and Parties who appear to have financial resources. ??Again, with no evaluation, evidence, or qualified assessment to affirm the accusation is factually credible.?As the creators of TPFF admitted, it has less than a 20% success rate (although it advertises to the Court a 98% success rate). ?Sadly, the Judges are led to believe and accept it has a great success rate, ignoring the TPFF model’s developers affirming it does not have a high success rate. ??We might add that the United States Government, under VAWA, is funding efforts to thwart the expansion of TPFF-type programs from being employed at the Judicial level in the respective States.?However, established special interest Experts who have significant unabated influence in the Family Court Judiciary are pushing for an explanation of this toxic program; money has to be made.

?????????Children having to go through COBI and TPFF are being mentally damaged, although the professionals are making substantial money of this industry, $10-38k for COBI and $30-60k?for TPFF.?

?????????5.??????Expert Witnesses – I do not want to get into the grave details and opinions I have with many Expert Witnesses in Family Court, viz, mental health providers in Maricopa Superior Court, over the past twenty-four years, I have been involved in Family Court.?Although I think there might be some good ones.??I cannot scream how much I [and you] have seen manipulation of facts, evidence, and constructional foundations ignored to create a result.

?????????I believe that in an effort in 2015, absolute immunity was removed from the Experts only for them not only making sure the Courts grant them quasi-immunity but that the respective license agencies these Experts are licensed with will not investigate those Experts unless the Judge who appointed them alleges, they did something wrong to the licensing agency.?Judges who do not fully grasp the professional standards of these Experts, and what Judge is going to say, “The person I appointed is lacking professionalism,” Especially considering most of the Experts which there really are only about 9 (most frequently appointed) of them have amassed alliances, influences,?specific relationships, exposure, which persuasive benefits (i.e., how did COBI get introduced without proper professional review).

?????????Let’s be honest and these Experts earn anywhere from $250-450.00 an hour and work on [or can] the fear of emotionally vulnerable litigants.?I would love to give examples of what I have seen, heard, witnessed, etc., but I will hold on to that for now.?However, because the Appointees do not have to follow the statutory professional standards of their respective disciplines, and they have qualified immunity (which is essentially absolute immunity), without any sort of impartial accountability, they have extreme and what I call excessive discretion in the Family Court, with a Court that will most likely follow their recommendations.?Expert Appointments are feared, not appreciated to resolve problems by many litigants.??

?

Conclusion – This brings us to the conclusion to the quinfecta of Family Court.?The Chief Justice ponders why Family Court is so problematic, address the quinfecta is a start. ?We need to halt COBI immediately; 2. ?We must immediately establish how to get more economically viable Experts into our Family Court system; 3.?We need to develop impartial professional standards, including independent professional conduct investigations of the Experts when an accusation is raised; 4.?We need to investigate whether anyone used their position or authority (directly or not) in allowing an unvetted “for profit” model into our system; and 5., We need to provide substantial training to discourage the Super Parent mentality.

??Look raising kids is exceptionally challenging for an intact Family.?I honestly want to accuse my dad of lying to me (joking, of course).?Raising kids is just amazingly [sic].?Regardless of demographics, money, economics, religion, social groups, etc., I have learned that no one really has the right answer for raising children.??There are foundation principles, but...?I can promise you this, no Judge, no lawyer, and most experts do not know with any absoluteness either.?The Experts might have good advice, but I can promise that there are Judges who have raised deviant kids, super-poor people who have raised excellent children, and everyone above, below, and in between.??However, like so many facets of Family Court, those with money and who are emotionally vulnerable run into the Family Court scheme and are being exploited to the detriment of their children and their.?Where Courts should work extraordinarily quickly to cause dissolutions and, divide assets, award custody accordingly, the Rules and Statutes in Title 25 need to be substantially curtailed to stop providing broad and perverse results to Families and children in Family Court.

?????????Newly appointed Judges, by far, usually have minimal professional qualifications and should not have the authority to decide how families will act as long as a criminal/violent or severe mental health act is noticed.?Only then do we have an established process that can identify and cure the proposed.?The use of extremely and highly paid-for Experts in a very unique cottage industry for this significant County, clearly yells for reform and a broader use of many other qualified Experts to bring a breadth of diversity in assisting Families when absolutely necessary is needed now.

?????????The idea that FCIC and even the Appellate Court are aware of the unusual circumstances surrounding the very concerning issues of the employment of COBI in our Family Court system, and the Chief Justice communicating his concern about the People’s confidence in the Judiciary, but ignoring both, demonstrates that the current leadership model and professional attributes are not best suited for this Committee (not knocking the individuals).

?????????The idea that Judges, lawyers, and Experts are willing to blindly appoint and exercise COBI and TPFF without being thoroughly knowledgeable of how it works is highly concerning.?The idea that the Experts, lawyers, and some Judges have the influence that can be hung over newly appointed Judges in the Judicial Performance Committee is also extraordinarily concerning.??Case-in-point, the FCIC, knowing the history of Rule 74 Appointees, opinions given about that Rule, the Supreme Court, and Appellate Court’s ruling about appointing people post Decree, is a blatant disregard to the will of keeping Family Court constricted and focused on its plain reading purpose.?I can’t help but think the people who pushed and had a direct or indirect interest in COBI and TPFF were pushing this agenda for self-serving reasons.

?????????I will go on, the Family Court system attempting to force children and parents to comply with this or that, with expensive, unproven, fly-by-the-night unvetted toxic mental health models, is not helping. ?They are acting more like emotional Super Parents exerting what often appears to be an abuse of discretionary authority.

?????????Judges, Lawyers, and Litigants need to dive much deeper on COBI, and TPFF, and learn that these models have yet to be vetted and are even discouraged by VAWA.?They are for-profit and are incredibly financially expensive.?They are destructive, and in their current form, just like COBS, they need to go away.

?????????No, I don’t have the absolute solution because one shoe does not fit all, like COBI and TPFF pretends to.?What is especially sad about TPFF is that their data of being unsuccessful is not too hard to acquire, yet the judges are so blinded by a false premise of 98% success rate by the Experts they gain advice from they settle on not finding or validating the truth, that blind method of employment is not in the best interest of the minor children.??FYI – Judges, lawyers, Experts, if any mental health model really were 98% successful, it would be the first-ever and mind-boggling at its success rate.?That alone should have been a clue.?Family Court has no Statutory Authority to act as a Super Parent.?Let’s work on encouraging the system to stop trying to. ?

Finally, the FCIC will conduct is next meeting, which the public is permitted to attend on September 7, 2023.?It is from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

I will always stand with “We the People.”

?

?

?

?

?