Keshel Vows to Probe Judge Amid Ongoing Family Court Controversies

A state representative is considering an investigation into a Maricopa County Superior Court judge following concerns about the judge’s family court rulings. This inquiry stems from a letter sent by Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, on October 7, which highlighted accusations of judicial bias and questionable custody decisions. Some constituents have claimed that Judge Charlene Jackson has made “adverse” custody orders jeopardizing children’s welfare.

Keshel, in her correspondence to Jackson, emphasized her desire for dialogue over confrontation. She stated her intention was to understand Jackson’s decisions better before escalating the matter. Notably, she distributed her letter to other county Superior Court judges, signaling broader concerns within the judicial community.

In her letter, Keshel expressed hope for an open discussion, but she warned of potential legislative action if necessary. She indicated she was prepared to use her legislative authority to probe the matters raised by her constituents. “I trust that you will appreciate the seriousness of these complaints and recognize the need for transparency and resolution,” she wrote.

The court responded on November 20, referring to Arizona’s judicial conduct rules which inhibit judges from commenting on cases. Judges are allowed to discuss their rulings in court but cannot address them publicly outside that context.

Despite her intent to prevent legislative measures, Keshel’s bill proposals related to family court have advanced. On Wednesday, four bills she introduced in response to the issues with Jackson progressed through House committees.

One notable bill, HB2256, passed on party lines, addressing allegations of parental alienation. Keshel has argued that this concept, often weaponized in custody disputes, must be scrutinized. She criticized its use in court as an ineffective tactic to undermine the relationship between a child and a parent.

“It’s not even a real legal term,” Keshel asserted, calling for greater awareness of how these arguments can be misused. The debate around parental alienation’s validity in legal contexts has persisted for decades, with criticisms that it lacks support from established psychological manuals.

Supporters of Keshel’s bill, such as Rachel Cardona Barnett, voiced similar concerns regarding the misuse of parental alienation in legal proceedings, especially in relation to domestic abuse accusations. Barnett’s own experiences with judicial intervention highlights the complexities and implications of family law.

Opposition emerged from Democrats, who expressed concerns that the bill could endanger victims of domestic violence and child abuse. “This raises concerns that in the future, parental alienation could be expanded into other key legal areas,” warned Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson.

More than 2,000 signatures have been gathered on a petition demanding Judge Jackson’s removal, with complaints alleging she has placed children in harmful situations. Amidst these controversies, Keshel’s additional proposals, including HB2152, were drawn from perceptions of bias within family courts.

Keshel maintained that parents should have a jury trial option in custody cases, a move she believes would enhance due process. Her motivation stems from distressing accounts from families dealing with the court system. “The stories that I’ve heard keep me up at night,” she remarked.

Other measures making progress include HB2254, which mandates reevaluation of temporary orders, and HB2255, aimed at reallocating financial responsibilities for parental evaluations in contested proceedings. These bills reflect a broader push toward reforming family court practices in Arizona.