Richard Luthmann and I were back talking about gerrymandering in Texas, Tesla’s evolution into a cutting-edge technology company, and more details on the attempted false arrest by New York District Attorney (DA) Mike McMahon in the current events segment.
In the What the Hales segment starting twenty-nine minutes in, we discussed how Jeremy Hales humiliated himself and served the wrong Richard Luthmann, along with his psychopathic bloodlust in celebrating the death of a lawyer involved in one of his lawsuits.
Then, fifty-seven minutes in we updated on the Idaho Child Custody and Domestic Relations Task Force.
Richard and I have tracked multiple states tackling family court reform.
It started in Arizona, which formed the ad hoc joint legislative committee on family court orders. We interviewed the co-chairs- Republican State Senator Mark Finchem and Republican State Representative Rachel Keshel.
The reform movement proceeded to Idaho, which formed the Idaho Child Custody and Domestic Relations Task Force. That task force held its first hearing on July 7, 2025. After, we interviewed the co-chair Republican State Senator Tammy Nichols.
(North Dakota has also formed a task force but has not held any hearings yet.)
During the interview with State Senator Nichols, the three of us noted that there was no local coverage of the initial task force hearing.
The task force held a second hearing on July 31, 2025.
The second hearing received plenty of local coverage, including this piece.
A new Idaho legislative task force is wading into the complicated and emotional territory of child custody laws with the possibility of making changes.
The Child Custody and Domestic Relations Task Force has met twice since the Legislature adjourned for the year, and co-Chairs Sen. Tammy Nichols, R-Middleton, and Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, said the group came about because of complaints from constituents.
“Our purpose here is to study how child custody and family laws are being interpreted and applied by Idaho courts,” Nichols said at the first meeting on July 7.
Nichols said the group of lawmakers will look into recommending changes to the state’s laws to “provide courts and citizens with more clarity.”
Scott told the Idaho Capital Sun in a text message that many legislators had been hearing reports of parents losing full custody of their children to co-parents with serious criminal records and some who had been “stuck in the system for several years spending lots of money” to fight for their children “with no end in sight.”
While that article provided in-depth coverage of the hearings, another local article focused on one lawyer who downplayed the systemic problems in family courts.
Family attorney Kacey Wall was among those who testified on Thursday. Wall said that she spoke to provide a different perspective to the meeting: a lawyer's perspective.
Wall said that at both meetings organized by the task force, they only heard of negative outcomes from trials.
"My concern was with the legislators only hearing these extreme examples of the ways that people feel that they got a negative outcome from the trial," Wall said.
Wall is no stranger to me; she is the guardian ad litem (GAL) on Heidi Moreland’s case. I interviewed Heidi in July.
Heidi said that Wall, who did not respond to several emails for comment, spent less than three hours with her children in the year plus she has been on the case.
Wall’s appearance may be part of intense pushback to Heidi, who also appeared on another local broadcast. Heidi also testified at the initial hearing on July 7.
Along with Wall’s appearance, Heidi received a frivolous cease and desist letter.
The only crime that Heidi mentioned in her interview with me was reckless driving, when she stated that her ex-husband, William Moreland, would try and get into accidents with his kids in the car.
She further stated that none of the abuse was physical, instead citing fat shaming, screaming, belittling, and the aforementioned reckless driving as examples of the abuse.
The letter is vague, and its remedy is absurd.
It makes leaps from vague allusions of possible defamatory statements to legal terms like defamation per se.
It is written by someone without much of an understanding of defamation law, or maybe, that’s the writer’s perception of the recipient.
I reached out to the attorney, a criminal defense attorney, and he did not respond.
Share this post