Arizona Families Call for Reform as Kristyn Alcott’s Misconduct Reveals Failures in Family Court Oversight

Arizona’s Courts Are Failing to Protect Families from Deception, Fraud and Abuse

MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA—In a scandal shaking the foundation of Arizona’s family court system, multiple families have come forward accusing Kristyn Alcott, a self-proclaimed social worker, court-appointed therapeutic interventionist, parenting time supervisor and forensic consultant of fraud, misrepresentation, and endangering children through her involvement in custody cases. Alcott owns Family First Forensic Consultants.

Alcott, who has long presented herself as a licensed social worker and behavioral health expert, signed court documents using the designation “BSW” (Bachelor of Social Work), despite not holding such a degree or any recognized license in psychology, therapy, or social work. Parents say they paid her for services she was not legally authorized to provide, believing she was a credentialed professional endorsed by the courts.

What’s more alarming is Alcott’s alleged role in patient brokering, steering children with state-funded health insurance into psychiatric and residential facilities, raising serious ethical and legal concerns. Victims claim her testimony has directly influenced custody outcomes, placing children in the care of abusive individuals and triggering long-term trauma.

Children at Risk, Families Silenced

Perhaps most troubling are the claims that Alcott’s testimony has led to children being placed with abusive parents. In several cases, parents say they presented evidence of domestic violence, substance abuse, or neglect only to have Alcott dismiss their concerns and recommend custody arrangements that endangered their children.

“She ignored the abuse,” said one mother. “She told the court I was unstable, even though I had medical records proving otherwise. My child was placed with someone who hurt them.”

Some parents who raised concerns say they were punished with gag orders, loss of custody, or court sanctions.

“It’s like the system protects her,” said another parent. “We’re punished for speaking out.”

Despite multiple judges receiving documented evidence of Alcott’s fraudulent behavior and perjury, the judicial response has been not only negligent but retaliatory. Rather than initiating criminal investigations or removing her from active cases, the courts have penalized parents who expose the fraud, effectively shielding Alcott from accountability.

Alcott is listed on multiple official Maricopa County Government websites listed as a “PARENTAL SOCIAL WORKER” despite lacking that credential. Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have been notified of this fraudulent conduct for several years and taken no action.

In another controversy involving Alcott, she identified herself as a “SOCIAL WORKER” to the media and in ethics hearings for former Rep. Leezah Sun.

From the Tucson Sentinel:

Arizona Globe calls Alcott a “Child Welfare Case Manager”

From Arizona Daily Independent:

What “process” is Alcott referring to? The only role Alcott is actually qualified for is a supervisor for visitation services.

Victims of Alcott's fraud are speaking out:

“Every affidavit she’s signed, every report she’s filed—it’s fraud. It’s perjury. And it’s happening in front of judges who are supposed to protect our children.”

Another victim of Kristyn Alcott states:

"This isn’t just about me. It’s about every child who’s been ripped from a loving parent. Every family forced into debt to comply with court orders based on lies. Every voice that’s been silenced because someone like Kristyn Alcott was allowed to speak louder."

Kristyn Alcott's conduct violates multiple Arizona criminal statutes:

Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices – ARS § 13-2310 Knowingly obtaining any benefit through false or fraudulent representations is a Class 2 felony.

Perjury – ARS § 13-2702 Making false sworn statements or declarations regarding material issues is a Class 4 felony.

Theft by Misrepresentation – ARS § 13-1802 Receiving payment for services under false pretenses qualifies as theft, ranging from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class 2 felony, depending on the amount.

Impersonating a Professional – ARS § 13-2406 Falsely claiming professional credentials or licensure is a Class 1 misdemeanor, with potential escalation based on harm caused.

Tampering with Public Records – ARS § 13-2407 Submitting or altering false documentation to courts or agencies is a Class 6 felony.

Unlawful Patient Brokering – ARS § 13-3730 Offering or receiving compensation for referring patients to treatment facilities is a felony offense.

Medicaid Fraud – ARS § 36-2991 Providing false information to obtain Medicaid payments or eligibility is subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Money Laundering – ARS § 13-2317 Concealing or disguising proceeds from illegal activity, including fraudulent billing or kickbacks, is a Class 2 felony.

Abuse of Vulnerable Adults and Children – ARS § 46-455 Knowingly allowing exploitation or harm to vulnerable individuals is a Class 5 felony, with enhanced penalties for repeated or severe abuse.

Furthermore, If Alcott’s knowingly false testimony results in a child being placed in the custody of an abuser, it may fall under child endangerment, especially if the placement leads to physical injury or risk of serious harm.

Arizona law defines child endangerment as:

“Any person who causes or permits a child to be placed in a situation where the health or welfare of the child is endangered” — ARS § 13-3623

Intentional or knowing endangerment is a Class 2 felony, Reckless endangerment is a Class 3 felony, Criminal negligence is a Class 4 felony. If the child is under 15, sentencing may be enhanced under Arizona’s dangerous crimes against children statutes.

Moreover, If Alcott holds herself out as a social worker or behavioral health professional, even falsely, she may still be subject to mandatory reporting laws. Arizona law requires certain professionals to report suspected child abuse or neglect immediately to law enforcement or the Department of Child Safety:

“Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect... shall immediately report” — ARS § 13-3620.

Failure to report is a Class 1 misdemeanor, but if the omission leads to further harm, it could escalate to more serious charges.

This is another systemic failure within the Maricopa County Family Courts that enables continued harm to children and families, undermines the integrity of Arizona’s legal institutions, and violates the public’s trust.

We need reform. We need accountability. And we need Arizona to stop protecting fraud and start protecting families. Where is Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes? Not protecting Arizona's children!

Enough Is Enough: Demand Accountability in Arizona’s Family Courts

Kristyn Alcott is not licensed. She is not qualified. Yet, Arizona’s courts, specifically the Maricopa County Superior Court continue to appoint her to cases involving vulnerable children, knowing full well she signs legal documents under false credentials and is accused of presenting falsities under oath in dozens of cases. She even signed "BSW" to her name when filing her articles of incorporation with the Arizona Corporation Commission back in 2021, also a crime.

In Arizona, knowingly filing false or misleading information with the Corporation Commission, such as in articles of incorporation is addressed under A.R.S. § 10-1636, titled "Civil liability for false filings."

Here’s what the statute says:

A.R.S. § 10-1636(A): Any person who authorizes or signs a report, certificate, notice, or other document submitted to the Arizona Corporation Commission, knowing at the time of delivery that the information is materially false or misleading, is liable to the corporation, its creditors, and shareholders for any resulting damages.

This means:

• If someone knowingly includes false credentials, titles, or other material misrepresentations in incorporation documents, they can be sued for damages.
• The statute also allows the prevailing party in such a lawsuit to recover costs and attorney’s fees.

If Kristyn Alcott signed incorporation documents using a false title like “BSW” (Bachelor of Social Work) without holding that credential, and did so knowingly, this statute could apply, especially because families and courts relied on that misrepresentation to their detriment.

If she’s lying about her credentials, what else is she lying about? Every report, affidavit, and courtroom testimony she’s delivered is now suspect. A proven liar should never be allowed to testify, especially when the stakes are children’s lives and parental rights.

This isn’t just unethical. It’s fraud. It's PERJURY. It's numerous FELONIES. And it’s happening in plain sight.

Parents are being forced to pay Alcott thousands of dollars for services she is not legally authorized to provide. She presents herself as a licensed social worker, signs court documents under that false title, and charges families for “expert” services that have no legal or clinical foundation.

That’s not just deception. It’s Consumer Fraud.

Her own children have required court intervention. There is video evidence of Alcott assaulting her son and subsequently sending him away because he didn't want to live with her. And yet, Kristyn Alcott is still permitted to testify about other parents’ relationships with their children under oath, in court, as if her credibility were intact.

But it gets worse.

Photos of Alcott in lingerie and kissing another woman submitted by her to online MILF contests have surfaced as legal exhibits in multiple family court cases where she was appointed. In any legitimate child welfare system, that alone would end her career. Instantly.

Kristyn Alcott MILF Contest Photos

But in Arizona’s Family Court Circus? It’s just another day.

If that doesn’t shake you, it should.

Arizona’s leadership knows. Governor Katie Hobbs knows. Attorney General Kris Mayes knows. And every day they allow this to continue, they accept liability.

Every case Alcott has touched must be reviewed. Families deserve answers. Children deserve justice. Alcott needs to refund every parent who paid her based on the misrepresentation that she is qualified to testify in court. And all court orders issued because of Alcott's testimony need to be vacated.

And if the state refuses to act? A class action lawsuit isn’t just possible, it’s inevitable.

Quasi-judicial immunity is not a license to commit fraud. Under Arizona law, court-appointed professionals such as therapists, custody evaluators, or coordinators may be granted quasi-judicial immunity when performing duties delegated by the court. However, this immunity is not absolute. It is forfeited when the individual acts outside the scope of their appointment, engages in misconduct, or commits fraud. For example, if a professional falsely claims credentials or misrepresents their qualifications, such as identifying as a licensed social worker without holding the degree or license, they are no longer performing a judicial function in good faith. Arizona courts have held that immunity does not shield individuals from liability when their actions are fraudulent, malicious, or outside the bounds of lawful authority. In such cases, they may be subject to civil suits, disciplinary action, and criminal prosecution.

In Paul E. v. Courtney F. (2018), the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that therapists appointed by the court were not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because they were not accountable to the court in a judicial capacity. The court emphasized that immunity applies only when the appointee is performing functions integral to the judicial process and under direct court supervision. When professionals operate independently, misrepresent credentials, or perform duties outside the scope of their appointment, they are not shielded from liability.

Case Summary: Paul E. v. Courtney F. (2018)

In this Arizona Court of Appeals case, the superior court had appointed therapists to work with a child involved in a custody dispute. The court also issued orders requiring the parent with sole legal decision-making authority to use specific therapists and restricted both parents from discussing certain topics with the child. The father challenged these orders, arguing they infringed on his constitutional rights and exceeded the court’s authority.

The appellate court vacated the orders, holding that:

• The superior court lacked statutory authority to dictate the p:arent’s choice of therapist.
• The court’s restrictions on parenting and speech violated constitutional rights.
• Most importantly, the therapists were not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity because they were not accountable to the court in a judicial capacity.

Legal Principles Established:

• Quasi-judicial immunity is conditional, not automatic.
• Professionals appointed by the court must be performing judicial functions and be accountable to the court to qualify for immunity.
• If they operate independently or outside the scope of their appointment, they can be sued and held liable.

How This Applies to Alcott:

If Alcott:

• Falsely claimed credentials (e.g., signing “BSW” without holding the degree)
• Provided services she was not licensed to perform
• Gave testimony that influenced custody outcomes
• Was not properly supervised or held accountable by the court

Then Paul E. v. Courtney F. supports several key arguments:

• Alcott is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, because she was not performing a judicial function in good faith and misrepresented her qualifications.
• Her actions fall outside the scope of lawful appointment, especially if she was not licensed or credentialed to provide the services she claimed.
• Victims may have standing to sue her for fraud, emotional harm, or professional misconduct.
• The court’s reliance on her testimony may have violated parents’ constitutional rights, particularly if it led to harmful custody decisions.

This case is a powerful precedent for challenging immunity claims and demanding accountability when court-appointed professionals abuse their role.

Another notable case worth mentioning is Gibson v. Theut (2019)

In this case, a minor named Steven Gibson Jr. was involved in a wrongful death lawsuit. The court appointed two individuals to represent him: a guardian ad litem (GAL) and a court-appointed attorney. Gibson later sued both for legal malpractice, alleging they failed to properly defend him and that the state and county negligently hired unqualified professionals.

The defendants claimed absolute judicial immunity, arguing that because they were appointed by the court, they were shielded from liability. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected that argument, holding that:

• Court-appointed professionals are not immune when they act in a representative capacity, rather than performing judicial functions.
• Minors have standing to sue their court-appointed attorneys for malpractice.
• Government entities may be liable for negligent hiring if they appoint professionals who lack the competence to handle the matter.

How This Applies to Alcott’s Case:

If Alcott was appointed by the court and:

• Falsely claimed credentials (e.g., signing “BSW” without holding the degree)
• Provided services she was not licensed to perform
• Gave testimony that endangered children or misled the court
• Was allowed to continue working despite known misconduct

Then Gibson v. Theut supports several key legal arguments:

• She may not be entitled to quasi-judicial immunity, because she acted outside the scope of her appointment and misrepresented her qualifications.
• Victims may have standing to sue her for fraud, misrepresentation, or emotional harm.
• The State of Arizona or its agencies may be liable for negligent hiring or retention, especially if they failed to vet her credentials or ignored complaints.

This case sets a precedent that court appointment does not equal immunity when misconduct is involved. It opens the door for civil litigation and accountability, both for the individual and the institutions that enabled her.

This aligns with broader legal principles: judicial immunity does not protect fraudulent, malicious, or ultra vires acts, meaning actions beyond legal authority. So, if a professional lies about their qualifications or impersonates a licensed role, they are no longer acting within the bounds of judicial delegation and may be subject to civil or criminal liability.

Qualified Immunity Under the Arizona Tort Claims Act

Arizona law provides qualified immunity to public entities and employees under the Arizona Tort Claims Act, specifically in A.R.S. § 12-820.02. This statute shields the state from liability for discretionary functions, such as hiring decisions, judicial appointments, and licensing actions unless the conduct involves gross negligence, intentional harm, or acts outside the scope of employment.

Qualified immunity does not apply when:

The government knew or should have known about misconduct and failed to act. This principle is supported by the Arizona Attorney General’s Agency Handbook – Chapter 13, which outlines liability for negligent supervision and failure to act on known risks.

The misconduct involves gross negligence, willful misconduct, or constitutional violations. A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A) explicitly states that immunity is lost when a public employee intended to cause injury or acted with gross negligence.

The state failed in its duty to vet, monitor, or discipline professionals acting under its authority. This is often litigated under theories of negligent hiring or supervision, which courts have recognized as valid claims when public entities ignore red flags or credible complaints.

If Alcott was appointed or allowed to continue working despite documented evidence of fraud, lack of credentials, or harm to children, the state could potentially be liable under a theory of negligent hiring, retention, or supervision.

In Summary Courts have held that public entities may be liable when they:

• Fail to verify professional qualifications
• Ignore credible complaints or evidence of misconduct
• Allow continued access to vulnerable populations despite known risks

One of the most relevant cases that deserves a second mention is Paul E. v. Courtney F., 2018 Ariz. App. LEXIS 36, where the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that court-appointed professionals are not immune when they act outside the scope of their appointment or engage in misconduct. The case reinforces that immunity is conditional, not absolute.

If you believe in protecting children, if you believe in truth, if you believe credentials matter, then speak up. Loudly.

Take Action Now

If Kristyn Alcott testified in your Arizona family court case while falsely claiming credentials, and the court relied on her testimony to issue orders affecting legal decision-making or parenting time, that may constitute a violation of due process under both Arizona law and the U.S. Constitution.

In Cruz V. Garcia, the Arizona Court of Appeals has affirmed that “[a] parent is entitled to due process whenever a proceeding will determine his or her custodial rights to a child” Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This includes both procedural due process, ensuring fair procedures, and substantive due process, which protects fundamental rights such as parenting and family integrity.

If Alcott’s false testimony deprived parents of a fair hearing or led to unjust custody outcomes, it may have violated both state and federal constitutional protections. That opens the door to legal remedies, including motions to vacate orders under Rule 83 of the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.

If Alcott:

• Claimed to be a licensed social worker or therapeutic interventionist without credentials
• Submitted affidavits or reports under false pretenses
• Was appointed by the court and her input influenced judicial decisions
• Was later proven to have lied or misrepresented her qualifications

Then litigants were denied a fair and impartial hearing, because:

• The court’s decision was based on materially false evidence
• Parents were deprived of the ability to challenge her credibility meaningfully
• The court failed to protect litigants from fraudulent influence

This may be grounds for a Rule 83 motion to vacate orders and could trigger civil liability and criminal investigation.

Vacating Family Court Orders: What to Do If Kristyn Alcott Lied in Your Case:

If Kristyn Alcott testified in your family court case while falsely claiming credentials or licensure, and her testimony influenced the outcome, you may be able to file a Rule 83 motion to vacate or amend the court’s orders. Under Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure Rule 83, litigants can request relief from a judgment based on fraud, misconduct, or newly discovered evidence. This includes situations where a court-appointed professional was later found to have lied about their qualifications.

To begin, gather documentation proving Alcott’s lack of credentials such as public licensing records, affidavits, or filings and explain how her false testimony materially impacted your case. You’ll need to file the motion with the same court that issued the original order and serve notice to all parties.

Contact Arizona State Leadership and Licensing Boards

Contact Governor Katie Hobbs

Submit a message to the Governor

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (602) 542-4331

Contact Attorney General Kris Mayes

Submit a complaint to the Attorney General

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (602) 542-5025

File a formal complaint with the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners

Complaint Form

Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Phone: (602) 542-8162

File a formal complaint with the Arizona Board of Behavioral Health Examiners

Report consumer fraud to the Arizona Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Bureau

File a consumer fraud complaint

Email: [email protected]

Phone: (602) 542-5763 (Phoenix) (800) 352-8431 (Outside Metro Phoenix)

Contact Project Justice USA who is compiling information on bad actors in the Family Courts including Ms. Kristyn Alcott operating her scheme from the Maricopa County Superior Court.

If you have more information about Family First Forensic Consultants, Kristyn Alcott or other members of Arizona's Family Court Cartel email [email protected]

This is a systemic failure that will no longer be tolerated.

The era of excuses is over. The reckoning has begun.

The misconduct within Arizona’s Family Court system is not a series of isolated incidents. It is the product of deliberate actions, sustained negligence, and institutional complicity. Judges and attorneys have not merely turned a blind eye; they have actively participated. They have weaponized their authority to silence families, distort justice, and protect corrupt actors operating under the guise of legitimate legal actions.

Presiding judges, entrusted by law with oversight and supervision, have failed in their most fundamental duty. Under Article 6, Section 11 of the Arizona Constitution, they are required to “exercise administrative supervision over the superior court and judges thereof in their counties.” This includes enforcing proper training, discipline, and constitutional compliance. Their refusal to act has created a lawless environment where due process is a joke and both parents and children's constitutional rights are routinely violated.

Those in positions of power including Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes, members of Arizona’s Psychological and Behavioral Health Boards, and other state officials have received repeated, credible complaints. Their silence in the face of documented abuse is not passive. It is a calculated decision to protect the system rather than the people it was designed to serve.

This ends now.

Every individual who enabled, ignored, or participated in this corruption must be held accountable. That includes therapists, evaluators, consultants, therapeutic interventionists, psychiatrists, psychologists, attorneys, judges, law enforcement officers, and elected officials. Their oaths are meaningless without enforcement. Contrary to their beliefs, their titles will not shield them from prosecution.

Criminal charges must follow. The Arizona Family Court Cartel must be dismantled. The harm inflicted on children and families is irreversible. Those responsible must face the full weight of the law.

Arizona’s children are not bargaining chips. They are not collateral damage in bureaucratic dysfunction. They are citizens whose constitutional rights have been violated, and they deserve justice.

This is a grave institutional failure. It is a system that has shielded predators, concealed abuse, silenced victims, and allowed fraud to flourish under the protection of state authority. The Arizona Family Court Cartel has operated unchecked for far too long, enabled by those sworn to uphold justice.

Every participant in this corruption must face consequences, not just professional discipline, not just public disgrace, but criminal prosecution. No badge, robe, regulatory board, or title will protect them. After all, the State of Arizona claims "No one is Above the Law."

This is the moment to demand accountability. Families deserve protection. Fraud disguised as therapy must be exposed. Arizona’s Family Courts must no longer be allowed to perpetuate harm under the false pretense of legal authority. The abuse enabled by systemic failure and individuals like Kristyn Alcott is a direct violation of public trust.

We call for full investigation, arrest, and prosecution of those who have violated their oaths and abused their authority. These bad actors, operating within what many now recognize as the Arizona Family Court Cartel, must be held criminally responsible.

Arizona’s children deserve better. They deserve defenders who will not flinch in the face of corruption.

Silence is complicity. Justice delayed is justice denied.

A message to every corrupt actor hiding behind the robes and titles of Arizona’s Family Court:

YOUR TIME IS UP! Accountability is coming. The system you exploited will no longer shield you from justice. You will be held accountable for what you have done. Enjoy Prison.