Arizona Governor Hobbs Protects Children with HB 2256 Veto
How State Bill Language Endangers Children by Weaponizing Consent and Gatekeeping Experts
We have a crisis in the United States, increasingly seen by, and concerning, child welfare professionals and therapists putting kids and families first.
Imagine this: A child has just disclosed that they’re terrified of a parent. Or maybe they haven’t said a word, perhaps they’ve been coached not to. A judge sees warning signs and recommends therapy to support the child and investigate deeper. But under Arizona House Bill 2256, which Governor Katie Hobbs just vetoed, that judge would’ve had no power to order that therapy unless the abusive parent agrees to it.
Let that sink in. And now get pissed off because parents are intentionally trying to pass such legislation.
The Language Is a Trap: Consent as a Shield for Abusers
The bill opens with:
“A court shall not order a party to pay for any type of therapeutic intervention without the consent of the party.”
On its face, that might sound like protecting civil liberties or parental rights. But this language is ripe for abuse, especially by abusive parents in custody disputes. The key word here is “consent.” It hands veto power to a parent, even if that parent is credibly accused of abuse, to block court-ordered therapy.
Let’s make this plain:
If a child is being emotionally manipulated, psychologically controlled, or isolated from a safe parent (a pattern known as Parental Alienation), that therapy might be the only path to expose the abuse. But under HB 2256, the manipulative parent could simply say, “I don’t consent,” and walk away, legally untouchable.
And it gets worse.
Weaponized Credentialing: The Bill’s Second Layer of Defense
The next section of the bill requires that any expert offering opinions on therapy, child development, or domestic violence must:
“Have specialized expertise in child development and substantial clinical experience with children in a therapeutic setting.”
“Follow the guidelines of the expert’s licensing board and not rely on theories that are not clinically established.”
This seems reasonable at first, and no one here is supporting therapy or similar intervention from parties unqualified to do so — we want experts to be credentialed. But in practice, this language is a dog whistle for the parental alienation debate. Critics of PA often call it a “junk science” or “unestablished theory,” despite over 40 years of peer-reviewed clinical evidence showing that Parental Alienation is a real, measurable, and devastating form of child psychological abuse (Harman et al., 2022; Lorandos, 2020; Bernet & Baker, 2013).
By subtly requiring experts to avoid “unestablished theories,” without defining what that means, the bill makes it easier for one side (typically, the abuser) to block any testimony that might expose manipulation, coercive control, or alienation. After all, a good parent would be, simply, seeking to ensure mental healthcare professionals are involved in a divorce and safeguarding their kids - ask why anyone might want their kids isolated from the very people who could uncover actual abuse.
It's not a safeguard. It's a muzzle.
The Real-World Impact: Silencing Professionals, Isolating Children
Let’s talk about what this looks like in a courtroom with such bills in place.
A trauma-informed psychologist (who’s worked with hundreds of kids traumatized by parental alienation) is disqualified from testifying because their expertise doesn’t fit the narrow, selectively defined scope of “clinically established.”
A reunification therapist trained to help kids rebuild safe attachments is prevented from helping because the alienating parent won’t “consent” to therapy.
A judge sees emotional abuse, but their hands are tied by the bill's language and can’t intervene.
This is not child protection. This is child endangerment masquerading as due process.
And it’s not just Arizona. Similar language is appearing in proposed bills across the U.S., particularly in the wake of the federal Kayden’s Law, which some groups are exploiting to restrict court access to qualified mental health professionals under the guise of protecting domestic violence survivors. While that law’s intent was to prioritize child safety, it’s been warped by activist lawyers and lobbying groups who conflate therapy with victim-blaming and treat any claim of parental alienation as a ploy; ironically aiding abusers in hiding their manipulation by preventing children from getting help.
Follow the Money — and the Silence
Who’s behind this? Look closely and you’ll find patterns: activists and attorneys who never mention the term child psychological abuse and instead frame every custody dispute as a domestic violence case, regardless of evidence. And abusers know this. That’s why we’re seeing the rise of bills that obstruct therapy, limit expert testimony, and block judges from intervening — all under the illusion of protecting rights.
In reality, they’re protecting abusers from exposure and sentencing children to lifelong trauma.
The Path Forward: Vetoes Are Not Enough
Governor Hobbs vetoed HB 2256. Good. And we can say good, with certainty by looking to the language of her veto; not saying that she knows she’s right but rather that this bill is poorly written and likely written with poor understanding of what’s really going on.
Every advocate, mental health professional, and policymaker who truly cares about child safety needs to be vigilant because therapy works. Watch for this kind of language:
“No therapy without consent”
“Unestablished theory”
“Only experts with experience in …” neglecting to include psychological or emotional abuse
“Court may not order reunification therapy”
These phrases are not about protecting children. They are about protecting those who harm children from being caught.
In reply to Governor Hobbs very appropriate veto, Senator Mark Finchem published:
"This commonsense measure would have safeguarded Arizona's vulnerable youth from the horrors of court-ordered reunification programs and the financial burdens they pose on parents after divorce proceedings," said Senator Finchem, Chairman of the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders. "It is unconscionable that the governor chose to uphold a system that silences victims, strips them of their rights, and allows for abuse under the guise of justice."
Just so we’re clear the “horrors of court-ordered reunification programs” are that it works, this is proven science. Better understand existing practices. Senator Finchem could have proposed better language, and appropriate measures to safeguard children, and instead, cites lies about these programs, to attack the veto, of a bill that would enable abusive parents to withhold therapy. If courts are “bankrupting families,” then write and pass bills with the language that ensures kids are in therapy, 50% of the time with both parents, without needing to turn to the courts for help.
I’m not going to say call your lawmaker… I’m going to clarify why and help you help them:
If you’re a therapist, lawyer, policymaker, or parent, start talking about this. Review legislation in your state. Bring in trauma experts. Push for clarity in the laws that define expert testimony. And if you’re watching bills like HB 2256 emerge in your community, do not wait until it’s law to act.
Don’t blindly ask lawmakers to oppose nor support a bill without first yourself knowing the implications of the words in the bill. Seemingly good bills, with support, are often written to accomplish an intended consequence kindly worded as an unintended consequence.
Silence is complicity. So is neutrality. Ignorance is ushering these bills through.
Want to stop child psychological abuse in family court? Abusive parents are ALWAYS directed by the courts as to how they can gain more custody or help their kids through a bad situation - don’t support the ban of the only professionals reasonably qualified to identify the source of harm and certainly NEVER allow an abusive parent to withhold care (especially under the guise of parental rights that would result in harm). Start by calling out bills like this for what they are: Trojan horses for abusers in custody battles.