As a measure to ban reunification treatment in Arizona heads to the governor, advocates and survivors are puzzled by Democratic opposition to the bill in both legislative chambers.
Reunification treatment is a practice commonly used within the family court system to try and force a relationship between children and their estranged parents after contentious custody battles. It’s often ordered in response to claims of “parental alienation” — a term coined by discredited psychiatrist Richard Gardner to describe situations where one parent is believed to be using their influence to turn their children against the rejected parent.
“The ‘alienation’ seed is typically planted by attorneys as a legal strategy or the rejected parent that makes the accusation. Once that seed has been planted, it’s invasive and takes over. The professionals who work in the alienation industry assess how much money a parent has, it will determine how targeted they are, and how ‘alienated’ their kids are,” said Tina Swithin, an advocate for protective parents enduring reunification processes and founder of One Mom’s Battle.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUBSCRIBE
As was the case in Swithin’s own custody battle, a rejected parent can claim that they have been alienated by the child’s preferred parent despite documentation of abuse, and change the trajectory of an entire trial.
“Abusers have figured out that, if the child has suffered any kind of abuse, and the mother comes forward with the allegations, the abuser can say, ‘She’s alienating me,’ and use that in an attempt to not be held accountable for anything he’s done,” coercive control educator Dr. Christine Cocchiola told the Arizona Mirror in a previous interview.
As a result of claims of alienation, family court judges will often order the children to be sent to reunification therapy, which, despite its name, is not real psychotherapy, according to the American Bar Association.
These therapy sessions aimed at rekindling a child’s relationship with their abuser can cost anywhere from $100 to $300 an hour. If that fails, judges can order parents to send their children to intensive, multi-day reunification camps that can cost up to $40,000.
In many cases, the court will order a 90-day no-contact rule between the child and their preferred parent for the duration of the treatment. Many parents say that the order is reissued every 90 days until the child turns 18, a process that informally changes custody in favor of the rejected parent.
Many of these camps hire transporters from third-party companies to forcefully remove children from their homes if parents do not voluntarily turn them over. A viral video from 2022 shows private transporters doing just that, as they ripped two children from their California home and to a reunification camp more than five hours away.
While there are no camps operating in Arizona, Sen. Shawnna Bolick introduced Senate Bill 1372 in hopes of banning the practice from being ordered by Arizona’s family courts.
As amended, SB1372 would ban the use of reunification treatment in Arizona if it requires the use of private transport services; an overnight, multi-day or out-of-state stay; a transfer of custody, whether it be physical or legal; or a no contact order between the child and their preferred parent unless both parents consent to the decision.
In the Senate, the bill was accompanied by emotional testimony from Arizonans impacted by reunification treatments.
Tori Nielson told lawmakers on the Senate Transportation, Technology and Missing Children Committee about her 13-year long family court case that led to her and her younger brother being “illegally kidnapped and trafficked across state lines” as they were taken from their Arizona home to a reunification camp in Ventura, Calif., by four strangers, later revealed to be private transporters hired by the court.
The 18-year-old’s story, and those of parents that also came to speak in support of the bill, visibly moved lawmakers across the panel. It passed through the committee by a vote of 6-1. The sole opposing vote came from Sen. Catherine Marsh, a Phoenix Democrat, who said that she had confidence that the bill would be amended to earn her yes vote on the floor.
“I am hoping that this bill will be amended, but I’m going to vote no until it is. I want to make sure that we are fixing the issue that we heard such compelling and heart-wrenching, tear-jerking testimony about, without entering in an unintended consequence which could be pretty problematic down the road, and require a new statue,” she said while explaining her committee vote.
No such amendment was ever added to the bill by the full Senate, yet Marsh voted to pass SB1372. But nine of her Democratic colleagues did not, including Sen. Theresa Hatathlie, who backed the bill in committee.
The bill still passed on a 19-9 vote, but the partisan divide grew wider when the bill was considered by the House of Representatives.
Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee heard from many of the same speakers that testified in the Senate, and their shocked reactions matched those of the senators that had heard the bill weeks prior.
The committee asked Bolick in researching this issue if she, at any point, went to the courts and asked how and why they are ordering reunification camps that aren’t even legally operating. She said she had not.
Rep. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, said that she needed to have those conversations with the family courts before she could “comfortably” vote in support of the bill.
“There needs to be some serious investigation as to why there are Maricopa County Superior Court judges referring families to these highly skeptical camps that have caused a lot of damage and harm,” she said. “We are toeing the line of taking away judicial discretion in a way that I don’t know necessarily gets to the root of the problem we are trying to solve here.”
Across the aisle, there was less confusion. Majority Leader Leo Biasucci said that he would support an amendment to fully ban reunification treatment, regardless of parental consent.
“This is insane. I think the most disturbing part is that I didn’t even know this existed. I think more troubling is nobody has an answer on who or how the courts are using these companies,” he said. “For me, I would like to see this banned outright.”
In explaining his vote in support of the bill, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, said that he was not surprised to hear that reunification is being used within Arizona courts.
“There are many ways courts facilitate profiting off of people in delicate situations,” Kolodin, an attorney, said.
When it came time for representatives to vote on the floor, the divide grew wider as nearly every Democrat voted against the bill on the floor.
In a statement to the Arizona Mirror, Ortiz explained that her hesitance came from a concern that the bill could run afoul of the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.
“I felt like I did not have the evidence and data needed about how often this is happening in the State of Arizona,” she said. “It seemed like the testimony was very specific to one court operator, and I felt as though passing legislation based off anecdotes, no matter how horrifying those anecdotes were, is something that we need to be very cautious of”
Ortiz said that she and the Democratic caucus were horrified to learn about the realities of the reunification system, and have gone through the processes to formally request Attorney General Kris Mayes for an investigation into the operator behind the reunification treatment that Nielsen described in her testimony.
“I think the proper investigative authorities need to look at that as opposed to the legislature taking a sweeping action that would infringe upon the judicial branch’s role,” Ortiz said.
SB1372 still managed to win approval in the House, passing by a vote of 32-27. It now heads to Gov. Katie Hobbs for a final decision.
“It’s in the governor’s hands,” Ortiz said. “I don’t think, if the governor were to sign it, that I would continue to have outstanding concerns.”
Advocates have expressed concern over what kind of influence partisan split seen in both chambers over the matter will have on the governor’s final decision.
Comments are closed.