LUTHMANN NOTE: Arizona’s family courts are finally facing sunlight. For decades, judges operated as unchecked monarchs in equity robes. Parents were stripped of custody without juries. Court appointees billed thousands per hour with near-total immunity. Malinda Sherwyn exposed it on The Unknown Podcast. Senator Mark Finchem called it a civil rights crisis. Rep. Rachel Keshel admitted, “Judges do what they want.” Senator Wendy Rogers dismantled the elitist argument that only judges know best. Now three bills threaten the cartel. Jury trials. Liability for bad actors. Presumed parental fitness. The question is simple: Will Katie Hobbs side with families — or the machine? This piece is “Arizona Court Cartel Under Fire,” first available at TheFamilyCourtCircus.com. The Unknown Podcast is available on YouTube and Rumble.
By Richard Luthmann with Michael Volpe
Sherwyn Sounds the Alarm: A Family Court House of Horrors
(PHOENIX, ARIZONA) – In an explosive podcast appearance, Malinda Sherwyn – a veteran Arizona court watchdog – pulled no punches about what she calls a family court “house of horrors.” Speaking on The Unknown Podcast with co-hosts Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann, Sherwyn detailed a system she says routinely ignores abuse, strips protective parents of custody, and funnels families into a for-profit gauntlet of court-appointed therapists and “reunification camps” – often without trial or due process.
She recounted testimony from a recent legislative hearing, where 15-year-old Sophia Clever testified that a judge even forced her mom to take out a second mortgage to pay a court-appointed custody evaluator.
Another father revealed how family court insiders size up parents’ finances: “That tells everyone how much money you make, and how much can be harvested by bad actors in the system.”
Parents described being financially devastated by an army of court appointees, from therapists to monitors – all paid hundreds an hour by the very families they’re supposed to help.
“If I don’t pay, I don’t get to see him. It’s like a ransom,” one mother, Angie Nielsen, testified, after spending $1 million for limited visits with her son.
Sherwyn and her allies insist this is more than a divorce dispute – it’s a civil rights crisis. They argue that basic constitutional protections of parents and children have been trampled “not just by the court, but by quasi-officers of the court.”
In blunt terms, victims say the family court machine is “extortion” masquerading as justice.
“This isn’t justice. This is extortion. This is no different than child trafficking,” testified a father named Dominic, who paid $2,000 per hour in fees just to see his son.
Sherwyn’s message was fearless and clear: Arizona’s family courts have become a cash-fueled circus of corruption – and it’s time to shut it down.
Arizona Court Cartel Under Fire: Jury Trials, Accountability & Joint Custody
Fed-up parents are no longer begging for mercy – they’re demanding major legal reforms. Down at the Arizona Capitol, lawmakers have unleashed a trio of bills targeting what Sherwyn calls the “family court cartel.”
Senate Bill 1330 would make Arizona the first state to give parents the right to a jury trial in child custody disputes. Sherwyn has championed this jury-trial idea for years, after multiple failed attempts since 2019. The latest version calls for a jury whenever a judge plans to give one parent less than 35% custody time.
In other words, no parent gets nearly erased without a jury of peers having a say.
Judges and bureaucrats hate the idea – and they sent out the lobbyists to fight it. Jordyn Clark, representing the Arizona Association of Counties, testified against SB 1330, insisting that only judges have the “training and experience” to decide custody.
Arizona State Sen. Wendy Rogers was having none of it.
“Are juries ever subject matter experts on the subjects that they pass judgment on?” Rogers asked pointedly.
Clark had no answer.
“Sure, the attorneys, if they’re in a scam with the judges, they’re gonna believe that. Prove me wrong,” Rogers said, simultaneously channeling Socrates and Charlie Kirk.
Based.
Rogers’ point was obvious: We don’t require criminologists on criminal juries or contract lawyers on civil juries – so why assume laypeople can’t judge a custody case?
Her cross-examination dismantled the elitist argument and left the crowd roaring.
SB 1330’s message is bold: parents deserve their day in court – a real court with a jury – before their children are taken away.
Another proposal, SB 1329, takes aim at the untouchable court “experts” who have profited from this system. For years, parents complained that court-appointed guardians, psychologists, and attorneys enjoy de facto immunity as they rack up fees and wreck lives. Senator Mark Finchem – who led the ad hoc committee that heard dozens of hours of horror stories about these appointees – authored SB 1329 to finally hold them accountable.
At first glance, Finchem’s bill sounded like it protected the court cronies; his press release touted “liability protections for court-appointed professionals acting within the scope of their duties,” worrying some reformers.
But the actual bill packs a twist: it lets parents sue those professionals for ethical violations or misconduct, up to four years after an incident. In effect, SB 1329 strips absolute immunity and replaces it with a more limited “qualified immunity” – similar to what police have.”
If a custody evaluator or therapist lies under oath or strays outside professional standards, they can be hauled into court. If they make a good-faith call that turns out wrong, they’re shielded from ruinous lawsuits.
It’s a delicate balance between accountability and protecting honest practitioners. Advocates say this reform is long overdue.
Parents have watched court appointees act with impunity, sometimes “destroying their lives” with biased reports and bogus theories. SB 1329 tells these court actors: you screw up, you pay up – just like the rest of us.
Rounding out the package is SB 1328, a bill that strikes at the heart of the custody wars. Arizona’s current system often forces mothers and fathers into a winner-take-all fight for primary custody.
SB 1328 would flip the script by establishing a presumption of joint custody. It says both parents are presumed fit and entitled to substantial parenting time – until proven otherwise. No more starting every case with the assumption that one parent must “win” sole custody. If this bill passes, a judge must treat mom and dad as equals at the outset, and only limit a parent’s time if there’s actual evidence that a child would be unsafe.
Reformers argue this will short-circuit the scorched-earth custody battles and stop judges from arbitrarily picking winners.
Notably, SB 1328 isn’t a rigid 50/50 mandate – it doesn’t force equal time in every case, which research doesn’t universally support. Instead, it forces courts to start with fairness. The onus shifts to proving why a parent shouldn’t get significant time, rather than forcing a fit parent to beg for scraps.
To activists, this is basic common sense. As Sherwyn put it, these reforms “return us to what is permitted and what is prohibited” – putting hard limits on judges’ whims and restoring families’ rights.
Each bill targets a different abuse – judges playing God in custody decisions, unaccountable hired guns, and a system that picks winners and losers – but together they add up to one idea: give power back to the people, back to parents, and back to the rule of law.
Arizona Court Cartel Under Fire: Katie Hobbs on Notice
This reform movement isn’t just pushing paper – it’s taking on Arizona’s entrenched powers in broad daylight. In a fiery committee hearing, Sen. Wendy Rogers and her colleagues showed they’re ready to confront anyone defending the status quo. Rogers’ grilling of county lobbyist Jordyn Clark made that clear, as she shredded the notion that only robed judges know best.
The real battle, however, may be just beginning. Judges, bureaucrats, and the divorce industry have a lot to lose if these bills become law – and they’re circling the wagons. Insiders report that the family law establishment is leaning on legislators hard.
The Arizona Association of Counties openly opposed jury trials. No surprise – many county judges don’t want juries looking over their shoulder. Court-related professional groups and high-priced custody evaluators are desperate to keep their gravy train running.
The message from the reform camp? Bring it on. They have some political heavyweights on their side.
Sen. Mark Finchem, who heard the gut-wrenching testimony firsthand, emerged from the hearings with a warning and a promise: “Based on what we’ve heard so far, it’s clear that the civil rights of both children and parents have been violated,” he declared, vowing to restore those rights.
Finchem pressed one court insider during testimony, “Are [judges] allowed to just break the state law?”
The reply: essentially yes – “a judge can order whatever they would like.”
Finchem’s retort was swift: “Courts are bound by law — not their whims.”
His ally, Rep. Rachel Keshel, grew emotional as she noted how many families have begged for help. She zeroed in on the core problem, citing a stunning admission from one victim: “Judges do what they want. That’s a problem,” Keshel said bluntly.
To these lawmakers, unchecked judicial power is the dragon to slay. They’re promising aggressive oversight and more hearings to expose the rot in the system. As Rogers put it, jurists shouldn’t act like philosopher-kings in family court – there’s supposed to be checks and balances.
All eyes now turn to Arizona’s executive branch. Governor Katie Hobbs – a Democrat and former family court social worker– sits poised with her veto pen.
In 2024, Hobbs vetoed a GOP-led family court reform bill, to the outrage of parents and reformers. Will she do it again?
Sherwyn and the movement aren’t afraid to call her out. They argue that blocking these reforms is nothing short of protecting a broken system that profits off children.
This time, Hobbs is on notice: if she sides with the old guard, she’s siding with “abuse, corruption, and profiteering” in the courts. The reform coalition is already ramping up public pressure, from viral social media posts to rallies at the Capitol steps.
“We won’t let them ignore this,” Sherwyn vowed in the podcast, urging Arizonans to contact Hobbs and demand action. Even before a single bill is signed, this grassroots uprising has rattled the powers that be.
The family court cartel is officially on defense. As one anonymous lawmaker quipped, the reformers have “put the fear of God into these judges.”
In Arizona’s high-stakes custody drama, the next act will pit a determined parents’ army and their legislative champions against the lobbyists, the judges, and maybe a governor, desperate to keep business as usual.
One thing is certain: Malinda Sherwyn and company are not backing down. They’re bombarding the public with truth, naming names, and shining a floodlight on the darkest corners of family court.
The fight for Arizona’s families has exploded into the open, and it’s as bombastic and unapologetic as the reformers leading it.
In the words of a steely Sen. Rogers to the establishment’s experts: “We’re not afraid of you. Now the people get to decide.”
