A federal lawsuit claims that local family-court policies and the actions of public officials and private professionals resulted in the unlawful separation of a father from his minor son, raising questions about due process and parental rights in Maricopa County’s family court system. The complaint was filed by David Christopher De Groote, individually and as next friend for his minor child E.D.D., on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Maricopa County; Judges Melissa M. Zabor, Pamela Gates, Ronda R. Fisk; several attorneys; law firms; a psychologist; and other unnamed defendants.
According to the filing (Case No. CV26-01983-PHX-SMB), De Groote asserts that he has never been accused or found responsible for abusing or neglecting his son. He states: “I have never abused E.D.D. in any way… There has never been any actual harm to my child caused by me.” The complaint centers on what De Groote describes as systemic issues within Maricopa County’s family-court administration that enabled the removal of a child from “a bonded, safe and loving parent” through administrative conduct rather than lawful judicial processes.
The plaintiff alleges violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive and procedural due process and familial association. He also brings related state-law claims including Arizona civil racketeering, common-law fraud, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. Central to these allegations is the claim that expired or improperly served modification petitions were used as vehicles for ongoing authority over custody matters without mandatory best-interests findings or proper review.
De Groote outlines how petitions regarding parenting time were placed on dismissal tracks but continued to be treated as active after their deadlines had passed without extension or explanation from the court. He argues that he was denied meaningful hearings on critical issues such as jurisdictional defects, conflicts with court-appointed evaluators, therapist misconduct, fabricated evidence, and requests for judicial disqualification—often receiving only brief minute entries citing Rule 35.1 without substantive findings.
The complaint details specific actions by Judge Melissa M. Zabor who is sued in her individual capacity for alleged non-judicial conduct such as manipulating records so they diverged from hearing transcripts; inventing arguments for opposing counsel; denying motions without hearings; failing to transfer cases after being named as a defendant in related civil actions; and continuing to preside despite verified affidavits seeking her disqualification under A.R.S. § 12-409.
Other defendants include attorneys Brian C. Petersen and Joshua Edwards (Edwards & Petersen PLC), Maria Belen Olmedo Guerra (the child’s mother), Dr. Susan Phipps-Yonas (court-appointed evaluator), Lori Kirsch-Goodwin and Hope Kirsch (Kirsch-Goodwin & Kirsch PLLC), among others. The plaintiff accuses them of collaborating to manipulate records—including school documents—and suppress professional opinions favorable to reunification between father and son.
The suit further alleges that Mother unilaterally terminated E.D.D.’s treating psychologist when reports began supporting reunification with De Groote: “Mother unilaterally terminated that therapist… leaving David and E.D.D. without the benefit of a treating professional whose views supported reunification.”
De Groote also describes attempts by private actors to use irregular e-filing categories for petitions so that no summons or notice would be issued or served—a practice he claims deprived him of notice required by Arizona statutes (A.R.S § 25-411) and rules governing service of process.
Throughout the period described in the complaint—from 2024 through early 2026—the plaintiff says he was subject to restrictive ‘temporary’ orders which effectively terminated his parenting time without statutory findings or evidentiary hearings on key safety issues involving allegations against Mother’s household: “Those orders were entered…without ever convening a focused evidentiary hearing on the molestation [of E.D.D.]…or Mother’s mental-health issues.”
Supervised visitation reports are cited as evidence confirming a positive relationship between father and son: “Across approximately ten separate visits…E.D.D., ran to David…was visibly excited…they interacted warmly…David followed all supervision rules.” Despite this documentation—and mental health records attributing E.D.D.’s distress primarily to separation from his father—the restrictive regime continued toward final orders.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages under federal civil-rights law as well as declaratory relief prohibiting future enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional county-level practices such as prolonged temporary orders without findings or reviewability requirements mandated by Arizona law.
In addition to monetary relief for economic losses incurred through supervised visitation costs, evaluations, medical treatment following an assault incident connected with family conflict, legal expenses, lost earning capacity due to litigation efforts—and severe emotional distress—the plaintiffs request structural reforms within Maricopa County’s family-court system.
The case identifies multiple attorneys involved but does not list specific judge names beyond those named as defendants (Judges Zabor, Gates, Fisk). The official case number is CV26-01983-PHX-SMB.
Source: 226cv01983_De_Groote_v_Maricopa_County_Complaint_District_Arizona.pdf
