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.