'I want them to know I'm coming to help': Phoenix father's custody case challenges 'pseudo-theory'

Adam Venetis came home on a Saturday morning nearly three years ago to find his wife at the door of their house in Phoenix with her bags packed.

Leah Venetis had woken up their three children, told them she loved them very much, but that she was moving out, according to her account in court records. One day earlier, she had filed for divorce after 17 years of marriage.

The court found both parents "fit" and ordered them to split custody of their children equally.

But when Leah would return to the house for visits, the children did not want to see her. They locked themselves in their rooms and refused to come out. When Adam tried taking the kids — then ages 14, 12 and 6 — to her new place for visits, they refused to get out of the car.

They accused her of “divorcing them,” according to court records.

After almost two years of trying and failing to restart a relationship with her children, Leah convinced the Maricopa County family court judge appointed to their divorce and custody case that a drastic measure was necessary: a four-day, intensive treatment program in Texas that cost $15,000 and promised to heal the broken connection.

Essential to the program’s protocol was cutting off all contact between the children and their preferred parent — in this case, their father. This mandatory "no-contact" period began after the intensive treatment program and was to last at least 90 days, with the possibility of an “indefinite extension,” according to the court order.

That was in the spring of 2023. It is now nearly 13 months since the court allowed Adam to see or speak to his children. His sons have remained in their mother’s full custody. His oldest, a daughter, ran away from home to escape the court’s order; she is still considered a missing person.

The court justified its action via a controversial premise: parental alienation, a psychological theory in which one parent is accused of brainwashing a child against the other parent.

The theory isn’t accepted by psychiatry’s leading diagnostic bodies. The American Psychiatric Association has repeatedly rejected parental alienation as a legitimate disorder. It was blasted as a “pseudo-concept” by a special rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Council, excluded by the World Health Organization and dismissed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges for failing to meet court evidentiary standards.

But it continues as a diagnosis in family courtrooms across the country, often put forward by lawyers who effectively leverage the theory to gain custody for their clients.

A bill prohibiting Arizona family court officials from ordering reunification treatment programs akin to the Venetis case has passed the Legislature and is in the hands of Gov. Katie Hobbs.

If signed into law, the legislation would make Arizona the latest in a series of states, including Colorado, Utah and California, to prohibit family courts from using reunification treatments that cut children off from their preferred parent for months or even years, supposedly to rehabilitate them from parental alienation.

In the Venetis case, the children were ordered to attend Turning Points for Families-Texas, a program that advertises its services as a “therapeutic vacation.” Loretta Maase, the program’s director, declined to comment on the Venetis case.

Adam, alongside several other parents with similar experiences, helped spearhead the initiative to bring this little-known issue to the attention of state legislators. Lawmakers from both parties initially expressed strong support for the bill — and shock that such treatment programs are legal in Arizona.

Since, some Democrats have grown concerned that the measure could interfere with judicial discretion, though they continue to describe the issue as “alarming” and deserving of further scrutiny. The legislation, Senate Bill 1372 sponsored by Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, passed the Legislature with support mostly from Republicans — just four Democrats ultimately voted in favor.

Adam has continued to testify about his family's experience as politicians examine the issue.

“My children, you know, they’ve never had a voice throughout this whole divorce case,” Adam told a Senate committee at the Arizona Capitol in February.

“My 16-year-old is missing. She's been missing for a year. My two sons have been isolated. ... I have not experienced any birthday parties with them. My mother has gone to their church, and they are whisked out the side door. They've threatened police action if we were even to contact them or hug them,” he said, his voice breaking.

“I want them to know I’m coming to help. I will never stop.”

Questions grow about treatment program, alleged disorder

The popularity of court-ordered reunification programs has risen in the past decade. Family court judges often turn to these intensive interventions as a last resort when children continue to reject one parent, effectively allowing overburdened court officials to outsource complex cases that have not improved with the regular Rolodex of court actions.

But in recent years, questions about the tactics used in these programs and the legitimacy of the supposed disorder they claim to remedy have grown. In several cases, reunification programs have attempted to force minors back into the custody of parents the children say harmed them, even in a case where state authorities in Utah found credible allegations of sexual abuse.

Defenders of the theory as a legitimate mental health disorder distinguish between a child who rejects a parent for a "good" reason — referred to as "realistic parental estrangement" — and parental alienation, which they define as rejection of a parent without a good reason. A history of abuse or neglect is considered a legitimate reason to reject a parent, according to thought leaders of the theory which was not accepted as part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses, or DSM-5. But they also say that children can be indoctrinated by one parent to falsely believe they were abused by the other parent as part of the alienation.

In the Venetis case, neither parent is accused of physical or sexual abuse. The oldest child has accused her mother of emotional abuse, which Leah Venetis has denied in court filings.

The issue has gained attention in Washington, D.C. In 2022, Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, promising federal funds to states that successfully reformed their family court laws to better protect children. Among the measures outlined: limiting the use of reunification camps and unscientific therapeutic methods that aim to force a child back into contact with a parent they are resisting.

Psychological experts who oppose these controversial treatments say they not only put children at grave risk for further traumatization but fail to address the underlying causes of broken family relationships.

“When kids are refusing or resisting contact with a parent, there could be a lot of reasons for that,” said Robin Deutsch, chair of the American Psychological Association’s working group on high-conflict family relationships involving children.

“Courts that fail to consider the multifactorial reasons a child might be resisting a parent and instead opt for the easy, single-factor approach of parental alienation risk missing and actually addressing the real problems at hand.”

In the Venetis case, an attorney appointed by the court to represent the boys filed a statement last month expressing deep concern about Adam’s continued separation from his children and stating that both boys still want to live with their father. Arizona law requires a court to consider a child’s request concerning custody if the child is “of suitable age and maturity.”

“Despite the lack of contact, the children maintain a significant amount of affection for Father,” Andrea Curry, the attorney representing the children, wrote to the court. “They miss him greatly and they are heart-broken that he has not been in their lives. Without his active presence in their lives, they will never be able to experience the happiness and childhood that they deserve.”

Curry continued that while the “sequestration” period was supposed to repair the children’s relationship with their mother, it may have done the opposite.

“Their relationship with Mother will never be whole under the current circumstances. They will continue to harbor resentment and even anger toward her the more time that elapses without contact with Father.” Curry expressed concern that continuing the current situation could lead the boys to acts of "teenage rebellion” or even running away, “like their sister.”

Curry did not respond to a request for comment.

The children’s mother maintains that the reunification process is working and remains in her children’s best interest, according to court documents.

Neither she nor her attorney responded to requests for an interview.

Last July, she successfully filed for an order of protection against Adam, accusing him of harassing her with “repetitive emails” requesting to see the children, despite the court’s no-contact order.

On April 1, she filed a motion to extend the no-contact order between the children and their father a third time, arguing that Adam had not demonstrated that he is “ready, willing and able” to support her relationship with the children and has failed to comply with the Turning Points for Families protocol — including penning a letter of apology to the children and enrolling with a program-approved therapist. 

“Father has made no attempt to earn the right to have contact with the children. And, more importantly, his ongoing behavior and statements demonstrate a willingness to sabotage all of the progress Mother and the children have made thus far,” the motion reads.

Adam has objected to the additional extension, arguing that he legally still maintains equal custody of his children, and that they continue to express that they want him as their primary parent. He also denies that he engaged in "alienating" behaviors, instead maintaining that he did everything in his power to support his children's relationship with their mother. He said he never heard of "parental alienation" until he was accused of it in the courtroom.

The newest presiding court officer, Judge Lauren R. Guyton, has not yet ruled on the request.

But earlier this month, she issued an order closing the case to the public and restricting the parents from speaking about it in any public forum. The judge did not explain that action, but it came after Adam addressed the Legislature about his situation.

'I have only ever tried to be the best dad I could’

The last day Adam saw his children was March 29, 2023. He left the house early in the afternoon to attend a hearing in his ongoing divorce case, kissing his kids goodbye.

The children were ordered to go with him, but they refused. They had resisted leaving the house for weeks after Judge Tracey Westerhausen signed the order sending them to Turning Points and into their mother’s custody.

Police already were called in to try to force the kids to comply with the order. On Feb. 24, 2023, officers first arrived to help Leah take the children. They asked Adam to leave his home while the transfer took place. Adam complied.

But, according to Phoenix Police Department reports, the children said they were “going to run away if they had to go with their mother” and wouldn’t leave the house. When Adam returned home, his children were still there. A police officer threatened that “he would be charged if he decided to disobey the order and stay with his children.” Adam decided to stay in his home with his children, nonetheless.

When Adam arrived at the courthouse that March without his children, Westerhausen found Adam in contempt for failing to force them to show up. She charged him with “custodial interference,” a class 6 felony, according to court records.

He left the courtroom in handcuffs and with his feet shackled. Instead of returning home, he was taken to a Maricopa County jail where he was stripped of his personal belongings and ordered to squat naked in front of guards who checked him for smuggled drugs before locking him in a cell without a hearing or release date.

Under Arizona law, someone accused of a criminal offense has a right to an arraignment and a preliminary hearing. Adam received neither prior to his incarceration.

When officers and fellow inmates asked about his crime, he did not know what to say.

"I have seen confusion every step of the way," Adam said in a phone interview from the county jail in 2023. "When I was booked, there was confusion ... as I go from one room to another, I've seen confusion on all the staff's faces as they process my paperwork."

While two confinement orders list a criminal felony, a court spokesperson later said it was a civil, not criminal, order of confinement, intended to “compel action” rather than to punish. The spokesperson said the judge eventually amended the complaint to “clarify” the matter.

Westerhausen ordered Adam locked up for an “indefinite” period until he “produces the children” to the courtroom. Arizona family law says that someone found in civil contempt must have the ability to comply with the terms to purge their sentence. Adam argued that it was impossible for him to deliver his children to the courtroom while locked in a jail cell. The judge was not compelled.

“I believe, you know, one of the father’s jobs in the house is to protect the family. And I can’t do that here,” Adam said from the Phoenix jail where he was detained. “I can’t provide for them financially in here, I can’t protect them physically. I can’t help them emotionally or mentally. I just have to sit here. ... I’ve been forced to let go of so many things.”

After eight days, on April 5, 2023, a guard knocked on his cell and told him he was free to go. The order granting his release, signed by Westerhausen, said his two younger children were “turned over to mother and in her custody.”

He would later find out from his family and footage from his security cameras that his children had attempted to barricade themselves in the home when he didn’t return from court. They locked the doors, closed the blinds and waited for his return.

But two days later, multiple police cars pulled up in front of the quiet brick house on a dead-end road in north-central Phoenix. They arrived on court orders to collect the three minors, according to police records. They left with the two younger children; the eldest, a 15-year-old girl, continued to resist the custody change and Turning Points order. She ran away from home days later.

Methods of coercion — including the use of threats, calling in law enforcement and even the use of physical force — are common elements of the treatment process for parental alienation. Turning Points for Families has used coercive methods on children in their care, including forcing minors to listen to recordings of their parents fighting, confiscating clothing and toiletries and even removing doors if children fail to comply with the program.

But using force to reunite families raises a host of legal and ethical problems, experts say.

Jane M. Spinak, a professor of law at Columbia Law School who specializes in juvenile justice and family court reform, said using force to resurrect a parent-child relationship is not only unethical but a setup for failure.

“For a family court judge to think that it is in these children’s interest to force them when a father has already said, ‘Look, I tried, they do not want to come, I cannot force them,’ and then a judge does it anyway is pretty spectacularly bad,” said Spinak, who recently authored “The End of Family Court,” which argues against the premise that family courts improve matters by intervening in family life.

For Adam, his eight days in jail pale in comparison to his past year without his kids.

“Living without my kids is like a ghost life,” he said in February. The few times he has managed to catch a glimpse of the boys, he described what he perceived as a fearful look in their eyes: “They look like their spirits had been robbed from them.”

He has channeled that pain into activism, working closely with lawmakers to see through the bill to end treatment interventions that cut off contact between children and their preferred parent.

"For the past 16 years, since my oldest was born, I have only ever tried to be the best dad I could,” Adam said. “I have never harmed my children. I have supported them emotionally, financially and spiritually through good times and bad. When their mom left, I was there. I encouraged forgiveness. I participated in reunification therapy. And yet I am being punished, and my children are being punished, by a court of law that claims to act in their best interests.”

Under consideration: Arizona lawmakers interested in banning court-ordered parental reunification camps

Republic reporter Alexis Waiss contributed to this article.

Hannah Dreyfus is an investigative reporter for The Arizona Republic. Reach her at hannah.dreyfus@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on X @Hannah_Dreyfus or Threads @hannahdreyfus.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Ariz. father battles 'parental alienation' theory, reunification camps