Krista Vivian Nash

I would never recommend Krista Nash as a Child's Legal Representative. Everything I write here is based on filings in my own case, billing records, recordings, and my personal experience. I also know multiple other Boulder County parents who have described the same pattern of behaviour. One of my b...iggest concerns was that Ms. Nash billed thousands of dollars preparing a Magistrate Review that could never even be considered by the District Court because it was filed incorrectly. Either she didn't know the review could not legally be considered, or she did know and billed for it anyway. I honestly don't know which explanation is worse. That same review correctly explained why reunification therapy in my case would violate Kayden's Law. She got that absolutely right. Then, almost unbelievably, she recommended what she called "family systems therapy" with Dr. Lynn Steinberg. Yes, that Lynn Steinberg. The same Dr. Steinberg whose work has become nationally known through the Maya and Sebastian case. The same Dr. Steinberg whose own website advertises: "One Family at a Time Reunification Program – A four-day program with the goal of reunifying children with their Alienated Parent." Calling it "family systems therapy" didn't change what it was. Fortunately, my son knew his rights. He insisted he did not have to work with Dr. Steinberg unless a judge specifically ordered him to. There was no such order. Ms. Nash also recommended that my only parenting time be supervised visits costing between $300 and $420 every week. At exactly the same time, she was telling the court that the previous order removing my son from my care should effectively be 100% reversed because current law and my son's best interests supported him returning to me. Those two recommendations simply do not make sense together. This is not a Child First approach. If a child should be returned to a parent immediately, why recommend parenting time that is so financially prohibitive it effectively terminates that parent's relationship with their child? The District Court ultimately agreed there were serious problems with the order. My Magistrate Review resulted in the case being remanded because there were insufficient best-interest findings supporting my son's relocation and no findings whatsoever supporting the effective reduction of my parenting time through financially impossible supervision costs. Those are matters of public record. The billing also raised serious concerns for me. Bills were re-issued after significant edits. There were vague entries amounting to thousands of dollars, what appeared to be duplicate billing, and recommendations that seemed internally contradictory. Over time I began to feel that the recommendations shifted depending on what kept the case alive, rather than what actually resolved it for the child. Sadly, I have since heard almost identical experiences from numerous other parents in Boulder County. The consistent theme is that Ms. Nash appears to tell each side what they want to hear while the litigation continues month after month, leaving children caught in the middle while parents spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is, of course, my opinion based on my experience and the stories shared with me by other families. But when you hear the same pattern over and over again, it becomes difficult to ignore. Perhaps the most upsetting part was my son repeatedly reaching out to her while he was in genuine distress. I have recordings he made of those conversations. My experience was that she often told him one thing, told me something completely different, and then billed for every interaction. When my son was finally returned to my care, Ms. Nash tried to take credit for that outcome. My own experience was very different. It felt as though my son was the one who protected himself by knowing his rights and refusing to participate in a programme that had never actually been ordered by the court.