By Judi Atwood | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
Phil Weiser’s ability to take a powerful company to court should not settle the question of his ability to govern Colorado. Families also deserve to know whether he will confront failures within the institutions his office advises and defends. The controversy involving psychologist Dr. Mark Kilmer makes that question especially urgent.
Weiser deserves credit for helping secure the multistate settlement with Meta announced Aug. 26, which included financial relief and commitments to strengthen protections for children. The announcement described the agreement as subject to court approval. Holding technology companies accountable matters. So does protecting parents’ ability to guide and support their children. Families deserve the same sustained attention when they raise concerns about professionals whose recommendations influence where their children live.
That achievement raises expectations for his leadership at home. Governing requires budgets, functioning agencies, cooperation with lawmakers and sustained attention to implementation. Colorado families deserve to know how he will bring that same determination to failures within the state’s own institutions — and what meaningful relief will reach those living with the consequences.
Consider Kilmer, who was removed from Colorado’s child and family investigator and parental responsibility evaluator rosters. His removal raises a separate question for the Department of Regulatory Agencies, known as DORA. If he remained licensed to treat families, how did regulators determine whether the concerns affecting his court work also affected his clinical practice? Different professional roles can require different standards. Families deserve an explanation of what was reviewed and how those standards protected them.
His removal also raises a question that professional discipline alone cannot answer: What happened to the families whose cases he had already evaluated?
Removing an evaluator does not automatically correct an earlier custody decision, provide a parent with legal assistance or restore a relationship damaged by an unjustified separation. Accountability must include a meaningful process for determining whether earlier evaluations warrant review and how affected families can obtain it.
Responsibility must be assigned accurately. Weiser does not directly control DORA’s licensing decisions or family-court orders. His office serves as chief legal counsel to the executive branch, including state departments, boards and commissions. The office also commits to open, accountable government. Representing an agency is a legitimate legal responsibility; it does not establish that every agency decision was sound policy.
That is why I want a public accounting from Weiser of his response to the Kilmer controversy. What concerns reached his office? What action was within its authority? What changes did he recommend to DORA or lawmakers? What evidence shows that those efforts improved the experience of families seeking help?
Confidential case details can be protected while policy choices, oversight procedures and aggregate results are explained. Where authority rests elsewhere, officials should identify who can act and what obstacles prevent a response.
Colorado’s passage of HB23-1178 in 2023 strengthened protections concerning abuse evidence, evaluator training and reunification practices. Those reforms matter. But passing a law does not repair an earlier custody decision or restore a child’s relationship with a parent. Reform must be measured by whether it reaches families who need protection.
Removing an evaluator or pursuing criminal accountability does not, by itself, resolve whether custody decisions influenced by that person’s work should be reconsidered. A broader accounting must address the consequences for families.
What meaningful review and affordable legal remedies were offered to affected families? Where an evaluation contributed to an unjustified separation, what was done to restore a safe parent-child relationship? When families reported that children were living with an abusive parent, how promptly were those concerns independently examined?
The attorney general provides legal support to DORA. Families challenging the conduct of professionals it licenses also need an accessible path to independent review and relief. They should not have to exhaust their savings simply to obtain a fair examination of alleged misconduct. Weiser should explain what his office has done, within its authority, to identify and address barriers to that process. When institutions have the resources to defend their decisions but families cannot afford to challenge consequential errors, public accountability falls short.
Such a review should investigate consequential errors without presuming that every evaluation was defective. Parental rights and due process require fair treatment of each parent. Taking abuse reports seriously means examining them carefully, providing a meaningful opportunity to respond and grounding decisions in the evidence.
Institutional culture belongs in that examination. Groupthink offers a useful way to consider whether professional agreement has discouraged independent scrutiny. In family court, the warning sign would be a parent’s objections being discounted because they conflict with an accepted professional account, rather than evaluated against the record. Professional relationships alone do not establish misconduct. The question is whether contrary evidence received a fair hearing.
Empathy belongs in that process too. It means understanding what an unanswered complaint, a delayed review or an inaccurate report can mean to the people living with the consequences. Officials should explain decisions in language families understand and acknowledge a documented failure without requiring another costly battle to establish that it occurred.
Professional strain deserves attention. The American Bar Association identifies family-law practitioners as particularly susceptible to compassion fatigue, which can include emotional detachment and reduced effectiveness. Support for practitioners matters, but families living through the trauma described in those case files deserve consideration too.
Weiser should explain how parents’ experiences inform his approach to oversight. Supporting the legal profession and protecting families are compatible responsibilities. His record should demonstrate both. Empathy should be evident in how government responds to the people who depend on these professionals and live with the consequences of their work.
For DORA, a public assessment should examine how long complaint reviews take, how repeated concerns are identified and how disciplinary findings are communicated to relevant authorities. It should also address how affected families are notified and what assistance is available to them. Where existing law prevents effective oversight, leaders should identify the obstacle and propose a specific change.
Weiser’s commitment to protecting children from social media should be matched by his willingness to demand answers about harm within Colorado’s own institutions. A child’s safety at home deserves sustained attention, effective oversight and a practical path to relief.
Governing means making those protections work. It requires officials to listen to families, explain the limits of their authority, use the authority available and show what improved. Before accepting courtroom success as evidence of governing ability, Colorado should insist on that accounting.
Judi Atwood is a policy director working with national nonprofits and contributes to Colorado Department of Human Services policy discussions through the Family Voice Council, where she trains and mentors new employees. She serves on the Child Protection Decertification Panel, has participated in judicial education panels and is a paid speaker at CDHS events. Her commentary draws on her policy work and lived experience in Colorado’s family-court system.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.