Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Day: February 7, 2025

Keshel threatens to investigate judge over pending family-court cases

A state representative threatened to investigate a Maricopa County Superior Court judge if they didn’t discuss some of the judge’s recent family court rulings – which judges are prohibited from doing under the state’s judicial conduct rules. 

Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, sent an Oct. 7 letter obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times on Thursday to family court Judge Charlene Jackson, requesting to speak with Jackson after several of Keshel’s constituents reached out to her with allegations of judicial bias, collusion with court-appointed experts, and “adverse” custody orders that have placed children at risk. 

Keshel stated in her letter that her intention wasn’t to jump to conclusions, but to understand Jackson’s decisions through a conversation before she took further actions. She copied all other county Superior Court judicial officers in her email with the letter sent to Jackson. 

“It is my hope that we can address these concerns through dialogue without the necessity of formal legislative measures,” Keshel wrote in her letter. “However, if necessary, I am prepared to take further steps, including utilizing the full scope of legislative authority to investigate these matters. I trust that you will appreciate the seriousness of these complaints and recognize the need for transparency and resolution.”

Keshel did not return a request for comment from the Arizona Capitol Times on Friday about what an investigation into Jackson would entail. 

A spokesman for the court responded to Keshel on Nov. 20, citing rules in the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct that restricts judges from making public and nonpublic statements about their cases. 

Judges can explain their rulings on the record in the courtroom if they feel it is necessary and judicial decisions are subject to review on appeal.

Although Keshel said in her letter that she hoped to avoid legislative measures, four of her bills related to family court and the issues she referenced with Jackson passed in House committees on Wednesday. 

Keshel’s letter referenced allegations of parental alienation in Jackson’s cases. The House Government Committee passed HB2256 on party lines to address the topic with Republicans in favor of the bill.

The measure would prohibit a court from taking testimony or ruling on a legal decision-making or parenting time petition based solely on allegations of parental alienation, defined as psychological manipulation of a child into showing unwarranted fear, disrespect, or hostility toward a parent or another family member. 

Keshel said Wednesday in committee that parental alienation is being used in court as a weapon to turn children against another parent. 

“It’s not even a real legal term,” Keshel said.

Parental alienation is not a new issue for family courts. It’s been described in legal cases across the country since the early 19th century, according to the American Bar Association. Its use as a scientific term to be used in legal proceedings has been debated for decades and some argue it shouldn’t be used in court because it’s not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.

“It is now known that the defense of child abuse is simply accusing the safe parent of parental alienation,” said Rachel Cardona Barnett, who testified in support of Keshel’s bill Wednesday. 

Barnett is a Littleton Elementary School District Governing Board member who was the mother in a child custodial case that former Democratic state Rep. Leezah Sun interfered with in June 2023. 

Sun’s intervention in that case was one of contributing factors that led to an ethics complaint filed against her and her resignation from the House. Barnett told the Arizona Republic she asked Sun not to intervene on the day of the children’ s exchange. 

Democrats in committee voted against Keshel’s bill out of concerns the bill may put domestic abuse, sexual assault and child abuse victims at risk.

“While it appears to restrict the use of parental alienation arguments in custody cases, its real danger lies in the fact that it formally introduces the concept into Arizona law where it currently does not exist,” said Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson. “This raises concerns that in the future, parental alienation could be expanded into other key legal areas where judges may be required to consider whether a protective parent is ‘alienating’ their child from the other parent – an argument frequently used by abusers to silence survivors and discredit legitimate allegations of abuse.” 

More than 2,000 people have signed a petition on Change.org calling for Jackson to be removed from the bench. Petitioners allege Jackson, appointed by former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, has repeatedly chosen to “position children in an environment of sexual and physical abuse.”

Another one of Keshel’s bills, HB2152, would permit the demand of a jury trial in any divorce case or determination of decision-making or parental time in child custody cases. 

Keshel said in committee that she introduced HB2152 because of the judicial bias that she believes judges show in family court cases and she wanted to give parents due process and be judged by their peers. She also said the situation was brought to her attention a few months before Wednesday’s government committee hearing by one family. 

“The stories that I’ve heard keep me up at night. I’ve never wanted to fight for something so bad,” Keshel said.

The other two measures that passed were HB 2254 and HB2255, with the latter passing the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. 

HB2254 would require courts to reevaluate temporary orders after six months. HB2255 addresses another one of Keshel’s concerns she outlined in her letter to Jackson.

Keshel stated in her letter that several constituents objected to Jackson’s appointment of forensic providers and court experts due to the associated costs they were required to pay, often exceeding $15,000 to $25,000. 

HB2255 would require courts to pay for the costs of an investigation or a parental psychiatric evaluation in a contested proceeding rather than parents paying for licensed professionals and experts who testify.

 

Cutting funds for developmentally disabled would have far-reaching impact

Our coalition of disability organizations — Ability360, Arizona Achieve, Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Arizona Statewide Independent Living Council, Care 4 the Caregivers, Direct Advocacy & Resource Center, Disability Rights Arizona, Raising Special Kids, The Arc of Arizona, and The Arc of Tempe — is deeply concerned by the ongoing threats to essential services provided through the Arizona Department of Economic Security-Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). 

The proposed requirement by the Arizona House of Representatives Appropriations Committee that DDD must either implement drastic cost reductions of 25%-50% and eliminate the Parents as Paid Caregivers (PPCG) program or face the potential shutdown of services is unrealistic and would have devastating consequences for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their families.

We urge lawmakers to recognize the catastrophic impact these proposed cuts would have on thousands of families and to pursue sustainable solutions that protect and strengthen the DDD system rather than dismantling it. We stand with the community in calling for immediate action to ensure continued funding and long-term stability for the services that individuals with I/DD rely on every day.

Background

The PPCG program was implemented as a response to the direct support professional (DSP) workforce crisis, which has left many individuals and families without access to consistent, qualified care. Family members stepped in to fill this gap to ensure their loved ones continued receiving necessary support, particularly as the Covid pandemic exacerbated staffing shortages. The program was never intended to replace a well-funded, sustainable DSP workforce, but rather to provide an emergency solution to a failing system. This solution has proven to be overwhelmingly successful in both meeting the immediate need for caregivers and improving outcomes for children receiving necessary care. 

According to a 2023 survey conducted by the Raising Voices Coalition, on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the highest possible level of stress a person can experience, parent caregivers reported a mean stress level of 78 prior to the Parents as Paid Caregivers program. With the program in place, their stress levels dropped to 32. Eliminating this program without addressing the root causes of the workforce crisis will leave countless families without viable alternatives, returning them to a situation of extraordinary stress that endangers both the caregivers and those they care for.

No Alternatives 

Arizona’s DSP workforce is already critically understaffed, with many provider agencies unable to fill positions due to low wages and high turnover. Any effort to further cut services will only deepen these issues, leaving individuals without the critical support they need to live independently, maintain employment, and participate fully in their communities. Further cuts would drive even more frontline workers out of the field, worsening the crisis. These services are not luxuries — they are medically necessary and fundamental to the well-being and rights of Arizonans with disabilities. 

The disability service system is a multibillion-dollar economic driver in Arizona. Short-term cost-cutting measures often lead to higher long-term expenses. If people with I/DD lose access to home and community-based services, or HCBS, the state will likely see an increase in costly emergency interventions and hospital admissions. The negative economic impact from providers going out of business, staff members losing their jobs, and family members having to give up jobs to stay at home to provide care will create a massive financial blow to the state’s tax revenues. People with disabilities will suffer short-term and long-term health impacts that end up costing the state more than the services they should receive.

A Right to Live in the Community

The US Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. LC decision provides that people with disabilities have the right to live in the community and receive community-based services and support. We strongly call on fellow advocates, nonprofit organizations, and community members to join us in urging legislative leaders to fully fund DDD services and reject any proposals that jeopardize the well-being of Arizona’s I/DD community. 

JJ Rico is the executive director of Disability Rights Arizona, Melanie Mills is state director of  The Arc of Arizona, and Jon Meyers executive director of Arizona Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.

Lawmaker proposes renaming Corporation Commission for better awareness

Lawmakers, activists and members of the Arizona Corporation Commission have lamented that voters do not understand the significance of the utility regulation body, but one senator is hoping to correct that by changing the agency’s name. 

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, who ran for the Corporation Commission in 2022, said she often had to explain to voters what the commission was and what it does. Those conversations inspired her to introduce a concurrent resolution that would allow voters to change the body’s name to “Public Utility and Corporation Commission.”

Lauren Kuby

“I ran for Corporation Commission in 2022 and when I would talk about my race, I would say, ‘This is the most important office that no one has ever heard of,’” Kuby said. “It really is the fourth branch of government, and the title of it does not really describe what it does.”

The Corporation Commission oversees public utility companies in the state, including electric, water and gas. The commission also registers businesses and regulates securities, railroads and pipelines. It consists of five members who are elected statewide to four-year terms. 

The commission is probably best known for its role in determining what Arizonans will pay in utility rates and is charged with holding companies like Arizona Public Service, Tucson Electric Power and Southwest Gas accountable. Kuby says adding the phrase “public utility” to the name of the commission will better reflect the work done by commissioners.

“I think perhaps if there was a more accurate title that voters would be more aware of its significance to their daily lives,” Kuby said.

She said the proposed name was inspired by utility regulation bodies in other states that include the phrase “public utility” in their titles. According to a list compiled by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, nearly every state’s utility regulation commission uses “public utility” or “public service” in their titles. Only three other states — Virginia, Kansas and Oklahoma — also use the title Corporation Commission.

Arizona’s Corporation Commission got its name when it was created by the state’s Constitution in 1912. In order to change the name, voters would have to amend the Constitution, which is why Kuby introduced the name change as a legislative referral to the ballot. 

Kuby’s referral will likely face an uphill battle in the Legislature, if it moves at all, since it was introduced by a Democrat. If it makes it out of the House and Senate, the referral would be sent to voters in 2026 for the final say. 

Sandy Bahr, executive director of the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon chapter, said she thinks the name of the commission matters and has an impact on whether Arizonans pay attention to it.

“I think adding public utility to the name would benefit the public, because it would be more transparent,” Bahr said. “The name of the Corporation Commission goes way back and we’re in a different era now. A lot of what they do is regulate utilities, and that’s how most people are affected [by it].”

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, served on the Corporation Commission from 2017 to 2023 and said he doesn’t think Kuby’s idea is a bad one, but he isn’t sure it is necessary. 

“I think that it sounds like a very long name,” Olson said. “… I think the current name of the Corporation Commission is fine, but I don’t see any harm in any education efforts to help voters understand what the Corporation Commission does.”

He agreed with Kuby on the lack of awareness of the commission, saying it is a “very powerful branch of government that folks don’t know very much about.”

Olson said he also thinks candidates for the commission and those who have served on the commission make voter education a priority and should continue to do so to help constituents understand its purpose. 

“I think it’s critical that anybody in any public office is actively getting out and talking to the voters, and that’s something that I focused on as a corporation commissioner, as did my colleagues and I presume those that are there now are doing as well,” Olson said. 

Bahr said she thinks there are other ways the commission could be more accessible and transparent for the public. The body functions like a court and uses a lot of jargon when discussing energy policy, so Bahr said she thinks the commission could release agendas in plain language and provide explanations of agenda items during hearings.

“I remember the first time I went to a Corporation Commission meeting, and I seriously thought they were speaking in some kind of code,” Bahr said.

She also said the commission could do more to increase public participation in its hearings, like allowing people to sign up to speak the day of a hearing or by holding public comment periods with commissioners in the evenings when most people are not at work. 

As far as the name change goes, it’s unclear whether current members of the Corporation Commission will be supportive. Republican Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson has made transparency and awareness a priority during her tenure, but declined to comment and deferred to a statement from the commission’s spokesperson.

In the statement, commission spokesperson Nicole Garcia said the commission is neutral on Kuby’s proposal. 

“Changing the name of the Arizona Corporation Commission would not change the agency’s mission or purpose,” Garcia said. “If approved by the Legislature and Signed into Law by the Governor, we will process accordingly.”

Arizona Capitol Times – Feb. 7, 2025

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.