This landmark event, held on November 11, 2025, in the Washington Press Room in Washington, D.C., featured a keynote address by celebrated constitutional and human rights attorney Bruce Fein, Esq. and was organized by Dr. Bandy X. Lee, MD, an acclaimed forensic psychiatrist, public health advocate, and Chief Medical Officer of The Institute of Forensic Science.
Speakers and participants convened from across the country, including key state legislators, journalists, medical and legal experts, and individuals with lived experience as former child victims of Family Court proceedings.
The meeting marked a significant step in advancing a national dialogue on scientific rigor, medical integrity, and evidence-based standards in Family Court and related legal systems. The event was sponsored by The Institute of Forensic Science, an organization dedicated to introducing medical rigor and scientific accountability into legal proceedings affecting children and families.
In his keynote testimony, Bruce Fein focuses on the need to rebuild the family court system around justice, due process, and constitutional protections. Drawing on decades of experience across every level of the American legal system, he argues that many of the injustices seen in family courts stem from a lack of basic procedural safeguards. Fein emphasizes that transparency is essential, noting that closed courtrooms enable abuse and arbitrariness, while openness promotes accountability and responsible decision making. He also stresses the importance of cross examination, calling it one of the most effective tools for uncovering truth and preventing misconduct within court proceedings.
Fein further outlines a framework for meaningful reform, including the right to counsel for parents and children, consideration of jury involvement, limits on absolute immunity for court actors, and improvements in how family court judges are selected and evaluated. He underscores that family court cases often carry consequences as severe as or more severe than criminal proceedings, yet lack comparable protections. Concluding his testimony, Fein calls for sustained legislative action, pilot programs, and long term commitment to reform, warning that meaningful change requires persistence in the face of entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo.
Dr. Bandy Lee National Landmark Conference on Family Court Violence
In this testimony, Dr. Bandy X. Lee addresses what she describes as one of the least recognized public health emergencies in the United States: systemic failures within family courts that place children and survivors at risk. She explains how family courts, which are expected to protect families and resolve conflict, often instead prolong cases for years, exacerbate domestic violence, and enable further harm. Dr. Lee highlights the alarming scale of the issue, noting that tens of thousands of children and families are impacted annually, with devastating emotional, psychological, and financial consequences.
Drawing on her experience as an expert witness in approximately seventy family court cases across more than thirty states, Dr. Lee outlines the human rights abuses she has personally observed, including the silencing and punishment of victims who speak out. She emphasizes that perpetrators are frequently shielded while innocent families are traumatized, sometimes for life. Her testimony calls for urgent national action, framing family court violence as a medical and public health crisis that demands immediate reform, rigorous standards, and accountability to protect children and vulnerable families.
In her testimony, Joyanna Silberg explains how systemic failures in family courts place children at serious risk when abuse allegations arise. Drawing on her work as a child psychologist, researcher, and expert witness in more than thirty states, she emphasizes that child abuse is far more common than courts often assume. She notes that many children in custody disputes have experienced abuse, yet judges often misinterpret credible disclosures as manipulation. Research she cites shows that tens of thousands of children each year are placed by family courts in the custody of an abusive parent.
Dr. Silberg describes how abusers exploit gaps in judicial understanding through denial and character attacks, while courts rely on evaluators without specialized training in abuse dynamics. She outlines the serious psychological harm suffered by children placed with abusers, including depression, dissociation, self harm, and suicidal ideation, as well as the escalation of abuse after custody decisions. She calls for urgent reforms such as mandatory training for judges and court personnel, laws that prioritize child safety, and national data collection to prevent ongoing harm.
In her testimony, Karen Winner explains how family courts often become an extension of abuse rather than a source of protection for survivors of domestic violence. Drawing on her investigative work and authorship of Divorce from Justice, she describes how the divorce court system operates as an industry driven by financial incentives instead of fairness. She notes that victims face the greatest risk after separation, yet family courts frequently escalate conflict through prolonged litigation, debt, and punitive rulings that harm both parents and children.
Winner highlights how secrecy, unchecked judicial power, and lack of accountability allow abusive dynamics to continue through court orders and custody decisions. She describes how documenting patterns of harm and exposing them publicly has led to real reform, including the removal of judges and officials from the bench. She concludes by emphasizing that transparency and citizen action are essential to restoring accountability and ensuring that family courts serve the public rather than entrenched interests.
In his testimony, Hon. Mark Finchem speaks from the perspective of a legislator who views himself as accountable to the public rather than the courts. He describes widespread frustration expressed by families affected by family court orders and explains how lawmakers in Arizona responded by forming a joint legislative ad hoc committee to investigate systemic failures. Through dozens of hours of public testimony, the committee identified recurring issues such as prolonged temporary orders, lack of oversight for court-ordered psychologists and allied professionals, and a system that often prioritizes billable interests over the best interests of children.
Finchem outlines several reform priorities, including increased legislative oversight, audits of court administrative practices, limits on quasi-judicial immunity, and stronger consideration of a child’s voice in custody decisions. He raises concerns about reunification programs and behavioral interventions imposed without parental consent, as well as the financial strain placed on families through extended litigation. Emphasizing that justice must serve children and families rather than entrenched systems, Finchem calls for statutory reform, accountability, and continued legislative pressure to restore transparency, due process, and child safety within family courts.
In her testimony, Hon. Rachel Keshel speaks as a state legislator committed to family court reform and accountability. She emphasizes that family courts across the country are failing to serve the people and that growing numbers of families, advocates, and lawmakers are demanding change. Keshel highlights the collaborative efforts underway in Arizona and beyond, noting that legislators across multiple states are working together to address systemic abuses and restore fairness within family court systems.
Keshel encourages families and advocates to remain persistent, vocal, and courageous, assuring them that they are not alone in this fight. She stresses the importance of carrying forward the knowledge shared at the conference, specifically urging participants to learn from experts such as Dr. Bandy X. Lee and bring those insights back to their elected officials. Concluding her testimony, Keshel reaffirms her personal commitment to reform and underscores that continued public engagement and legislative oversight are essential to protecting families and children from further harm
In his testimony, Rory Doyle explains how family courts often rely on unscientific and fraudulent forensic evaluations that place children at risk. Drawing from personal experience and case data, he describes how evaluators without medical training fabricate diagnoses, ignore objective medical records, and rely on brief interviews and questionnaires without providing raw data or evidence. Doyle emphasizes that this lack of scientific rigor allows abuse to be concealed and false narratives to guide custody decisions.
Doyle highlights the financial incentives that sustain this system, noting that prolonged litigation benefits professionals while children remain in unsafe situations. He contrasts this with the work of Dr. Bandy X. Lee, explaining that forensic psychiatrists who apply objective medical standards and empirical evidence are often excluded because their involvement would quickly expose misconduct. He concludes by calling for accountability, national data collection, and a return to evidence based forensic practice to protect children and families.
In her testimony, Senator Tammy Nichols describes Idaho’s efforts to examine and reform its family court system through a statewide task force focused on child custody and domestic relations. She explains that the task force was created to review whether family courts are meeting constitutional, statutory, and ethical obligations, particularly with respect to due process, parental rights, and child safety. Drawing on extensive public testimony gathered across Idaho, Nichols emphasizes that failures in family court are not abstract legal issues but deeply personal crises that erode public trust and leave families and children suffering long term consequences.
Nichols outlines recurring systemic problems, including lack of oversight and accountability, inconsistent practices across jurisdictions, excessive financial burdens on families, and barriers faced by self represented parents. She stresses that many families are effectively priced out of justice through court ordered evaluations and services, while delays and fragmented processes prolong trauma for children. Concluding her testimony, Nichols calls for legislative solutions that promote transparency, affordability, consistency, and education, asserting that family courts must protect fundamental liberties and serve all families fairly rather than only those with resources or influence.
In her testimony, Hon. Suzanne Weber draws on her background as an educator, mayor, and legislator to describe the profound harm family courts can inflict on children, parents, and grandparents. She explains that family courts often abandon their core mission of protection and fairness, instead treating families as adversaries during moments of extreme vulnerability. Weber highlights troubling examples of arbitrary custody decisions, lack of responsiveness from child protection agencies, and proceedings conducted without meaningful due process or transparency, leaving families traumatized and financially devastated.
Weber emphasizes that the family court system is frequently driven by profit rather than justice, with prolonged litigation, evaluations, and interventions rewarding conflict instead of resolution. She outlines legislative efforts in Oregon to address these failures, including the passage of a bipartisan bill requiring judicial education on domestic and sexual violence. Calling family court reform a civil rights issue, Weber urges comprehensive, data driven oversight rooted in constitutional principles, fiscal responsibility, and child safety. She concludes by stressing that justice must serve families and children first, warning that a system sustained by secrecy and financial incentives threatens the future of American families.
In his testimony, Hon. J.D. Bernardy outlines systemic due process failures within New Hampshire’s family court system, tracing many of the problems to structural changes made in 2005. He explains that family court cases are frequently handled by contract judges, referees, or marital masters who are not constitutional officers and are not subject to the judicial code of conduct. Bernardy describes how basic legal safeguards are often absent, including sworn testimony, consistent application of rules of evidence, meaningful discovery, and accountability for judicial misconduct, leaving families without effective remedies.
Bernardy emphasizes that these structural flaws incentivize prolonged litigation, often lasting until children reach adulthood, while rewarding abusive or disengaged parents and draining families financially and emotionally. He links these practices to federal funding mechanisms that encourage case protraction and reduced parental involvement. As a solution, Bernardy advocates returning family court jurisdiction to superior courts with full due process protections, jury trials, and transparent oversight. He concludes that meaningful reform requires restoring constitutional rights, implementing ethical mediation standards, and ending practices that cause ongoing harm to children and families.
In her testimony, Veronica Baiz speaks as a mother, U.S. Army veteran, and executive who has witnessed firsthand how family courts can betray the families they are meant to protect. She describes a nationwide pattern in which court-appointed professionals and judges wield unchecked power, often silencing parents, sealing cases, and dismissing evidence. Baiz explains how allegations of abuse or requests for fairness are frequently reframed as misconduct by parents, turning expertise into a tool of control rather than protection and making justice dependent on financial resources rather than truth.
Baiz frames these failures as a profound civil and human rights crisis, supported by economic and constitutional analysis. She cites research showing that family court systems impose massive social and financial costs while failing to protect children, with far more families harmed than helped. Calling the issue a national emergency, she urges lawmakers and citizens to demand transparency, oversight, and accountability, warning that when families can be dismantled without due process, no constitutional right is truly secure. She concludes by emphasizing that restoring justice to family courts is essential to protecting children, preserving families, and safeguarding the foundations of a free society.
© 2026 The Institute of Forensic Science. All rights reserved.