Committee hears emotional testimony as bill would limit parenting consultants’ authority

The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee on March 12 heard hours of testimony and discussion on House File 2937, a bill that would restrict the role of privately retained "parenting consultants" in family-court cases and clarify that their determinations cannot become binding or replace judicial decision-making.

Representative Donald, who introduced the bill, said Section 2 preserves parents’ ability to seek voluntary dispute resolution while ensuring that decisions affecting parental rights are made in court rather than by private third parties. "This change ensures that ... their determinations cannot become binding or serve as admissible evidence influencing court decisions," he said.

Testifiers described repeated concerns. Sarah Briscoe recounted a family case she said lasted four years in which a parenting consultant had limited phone contact, failed to review crucial medical and school records, and maintained private communications with her former spouse. Briscoe told the committee the experience led to educational setbacks and safety incidents for her children and urged lawmakers to prevent private actors from exercising quasi‑judicial authority. She emphasized the emotional stakes, saying, "Don't stop fighting for me," and asking the committee to protect the integrity of court decision-making.

Molly Kate Olsen, founder of the Center for Parental Responsibility, said the family law system now includes dozens of practitioner roles and that parenting consultants often charge hourly fees and retainers that can total thousands of dollars; she described limited oversight and inconsistent qualifications.

Members questioned practical details. Representative McDonald asked whether a fiscal note should be requested to measure any increased burden on district courts; nonpartisan staff indicated no fiscal note had been requested but offered to follow up. Members also raised whether court rules govern consultant qualifications and how parents may challenge or end consultant contracts; testifiers said contracts can be difficult to break and that consultants may continue charging while disputes proceed to court.

A central point of contention was whether evaluations and recommendations by parenting consultants should be entirely inadmissible in court. Some members worried a categorical ban would remove useful information from judges; others stressed that admitting consultant determinations without statutory standards risks delegating judicial authority to private actors. Committee members asked the sponsor to refine language balancing judicial discretion with protections for parental rights.

The committee adopted an A1 amendment adding an effective date provision (applying to agreements signed or renewed after Aug. 1 and to court filings or evidence presented on or after that date) and laid HF 2937 over for further consideration.