Back in March 2026, Arizona Republican State Representative Quang Nguyen used his position as head of the Arizona House Judiciary Committee to kill a slate of family court reform bills.
All the bills were sponsored by Republican State Senator Mark Finchem. The two have a history of rivalry and bad blood.
When he spoke to Richard Luthmann, State Representative Nguyen insisted that the bills died because they would have done more harm than good.
Shawn Dell Wildman- who is running against State Representative Nguyen in the Republican primary on July 21, 2026- recently joined Richard Luthmann and me in The Unknown.
She told us that State Representative Nguyen wasn’t doing what’s best for the parents and children of Arizona but rather engaged in cynical politics to settle a score.
She said that she attended the hearing where the bills were supposed to be heard and she saw many parents,
She said that State Representative Nguyen gave no indication the bills would be killed prior to the hearing.
“The air went out of the room,” she told us after he did.
She said that she would have voted for the bills, which together would have provided needed reform.
Shawn Dell pointed to one which would have required therapists, psychologists, and judges to report abuse which was disclosed.
She expressed shock that this is already not mandated.
We all also agreed that the jury trial bill was necessary for reform. That bill was part of the slate of bills State Rep Nguyen killed. He called it a “poison pill,” when asked by Richard why he opposed it.
50/50 presumed custody
Earlier this week, Shawn Dell threw her support for SB 1720, a presumed 50/50 bill, on her Substack.
Both parents. Equal time. Equal standing.
That was the simple principle behind Senate Bill 1720.
The bill would have directed Arizona courts to begin with a presumption of equal parenting time when both parents were fit, and the arrangement was safe for the child. Judges could still depart from equal parenting when documented safety concerns existed, but equal time would become the starting point rather than something one parent had to spend years and thousands of dollars fighting to obtain.
That support sparked a debate, with Shawn Dell and Rich on one side and me on the other. See the debate below.
Shawn Dell insisted that 50/50 was a “starting point,” while Rich said that guaranteeing significant time would reduce litigation.
Shawn Dell noted that after Kentucky implemented its 50/50 presumption divorce dropped by 25%. The national average was an 18% drop during the same time period.
As always, I played a 2021 speech from Australian Member of Parliament (MP) Graham Perrette, when that country was debating overturning their 50/50 law.
Though SB 1720 allows for numerous factors to rebut that presumption, when 50/50 presumption laws are implemented, judges universally force that arrangement almost always.
As MP Perrette noted in his speech, no two families are alike, so a one size fits all model is doomed to fail.
(Check out the interview with South Dakota Republican State Senator Tom Pischke for more on this debate)
Election integrity
We had another spirited debate on the issue of election integrity.
Rich and Shawn Dell criticized Arizona’s election system which both argued allowed for too many mail-in ballots.
The debate mirrored one we recently had with Seth Keshel.
They argued that mail in ballots are unsafe and ripe for fraud.
I disagreed, noting that mail in ballots require signatures which are then matched to signatures on file.
I think this issue was conjured by President Trump after losing in 2020. Check out the debate below.
