Krista Vivian Nash

Krista Vivian Nash

2.3
Rating: 6.2

Licensed for 11 years

Family Lawyer at Arvada, CO
Practice Areas: Family

5610 Ward Rd Ste 300, Arvada, CO

About Krista

Biography

Practice Areas

1

Practice Area

Family 100%

When representing a parent, we continuously counsel our clients to choose the path that is right, that brings peace, that lessens conflict and holds what is left of your co-parenting relationship together. We prefer to earn less money but increase t

100%

Fees and Rates

We have not found any cost information for this lawyer


Looking for an attorney? Avvo can help.

search module image

Search our directory

Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.

chat module image

Avvo's live chat agents can help coordinate a consultation with a local attorney.

Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.

Chat with

Licenses

Licensed in Wyoming for 7 years

State: Wyoming

Acquired: 2018

Active

No misconduct found

Licensed in Colorado for 11 years

State: Colorado

Acquired: 2015

Active

No misconduct found

Location

Krista Nash

5610 Ward Rd Ste 300, Arvada, CO, 80002-1309

Nash Family Law PC

5610 Ward Rd Ste 300, Arvada, CO, 80002-1309

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Krista Vivian Nash's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

2.3 /5.0

9 Client Reviews

Filter Avvo Reviews (9) Refine reviews to match your needs. Use the filters to quickly surface reviews that align with your case or priorities.

Showing 1 - 4 of 4 reviews | Recommendation

Posted by lisa | July 21, 2026 | Hired Attorney

Extremely concerning conduct

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.

Krista Nash

Replied last July 24, 2026

Because this review concerns a specific court case involving a child, I will not publicly disclose the child’s private circumstances or attempt to retry the case in a review. I do, however, strongly disagree with this characterization of my work. A Child’s Legal Representative does not control the orders entered before the CLR is appointed, nor does the CLR represent either parent or the child directly. In some cases, a CLR enters litigation only after substantial judicial findings, procedural decisions, and litigation strategies (and perhaps errors by parents' counsel) have already shaped the child’s circumstances. At that point, the CLR must work within a complicated legal and procedural posture, evaluate the child’s immediate needs, preserve appropriate legal issues, and attempt to correct or mitigate problems that may have arisen before the CLR ever became involved. I take Kayden’s Law and the safety concerns it addresses extremely seriously. Applying that law in an active case is not always as simple as attaching a label to a particular service or filing. Family law cases frequently involve difficult choice-of-law questions, procedural limitations, existing court orders, disputed facts, and the need to create a careful record so that the court can properly consider the child’s circumstances in both current and upcoming decisions. The assertion that legal work was “filed incorrectly” or “could never be considered” reflects a litigant’s legal conclusion, not an established fact. Parents understandably view litigation through the lens of their own experience and desired outcome, but they do not always have the legal training or the full information necessary to assess why a particular argument was raised, how an issue was preserved, or how a filing could affect later proceedings. Strategic legal decisions are often made not only for the immediate ruling, but also to educate the court, preserve error, correct an incomplete record, and improve future outcomes for the child. Similarly, recommendations made at different stages of a case are not necessarily inconsistent. A child may require a cautious interim structure while the CLR simultaneously works toward a substantially different long-term outcome. That is not “playing both sides.” It is the careful, evolving work required in a complex child-centered case. It is also not unusual in this work for a parent to express deep gratitude when progress is made and later criticize the same professional when individual recommendations, fees, or aspects of the process are not to that parent’s liking. That tension is inherent in a role that is independent of both parents. I stand firmly behind the work I performed in this matter. My decisions were made carefully, strategically, and in good faith, with the child’s welfare as the governing concern. Over more than a decade and approximately 100s of CLR appointments, I have taken that responsibility extremely seriously, even when doing so has required difficult recommendations, extensive legal work, or positions that neither parent fully welcomed.

Posted by anonymous | January 29, 2026 | Hired Attorney

Zero Stars

Unprofessional and deeply disappointing. She arrived late, billed excessively, and admitted she had not reviewed my case while pressuring me to fire my attorney. She refused to review evidence, showed clear bias without factual basis, caused unnecessary delays, and then blamed others for those delays.... Her actions contributed to nearly a year of avoidable court postponements while fees continued to accrue. I would not recommend her services especially where child safety is concerned.

Krista Nash

Replied last March 05, 2026

Because this review is anonymous, I cannot confirm whether the reviewer was ever a client or party in a case involving my firm. What I can say is that the statements in this review do not accurately reflect my practice or professional conduct. Ethical rules prevent me from discussing the details of any specific matter in a public forum. I take my responsibilities to children and families very seriously and work diligently to prepare for every case and advocate for child-centered outcomes. For those seeking a broader picture of client experiences with my firm, I encourage prospective clients to review the more than 100 five-star client reviews on Google from individuals who have worked directly with us.

Posted by Samantha | May 04, 2023 | Hired Attorney

She used her power to prove a point very judgmental

Krista is very judgemental. She doesn't do her job to the best of her ability and makes excuses to the judge why she doesn't do her job I was a state paid client and every conversation was regarding money she didn't have the funds to provide the proper resources, she stated she had no safety concerns... with me but yet she never came out to see her 7 year old client which she stated was 4 well if she and her firm would have done their job instead of trying to prove a point and BE A GATE KEEPER she would know his age not only that but if she paid attention to detail paperwork she would know more about her client ,she is not familiar with her statues she has to ask the judges help on statuse just a piss poor performance from her and her employees and the worst experience ever if your looking for a lieoryer their the right ones if your looking for a LAWYER look elsewhere she is not credible with her word or actions she seen no concerns with a child being around a gun which any person in there right mind would but for her to prove her point of power she did nothing to protect my son she will referee you to cps if the job is to much for her instead of getting off the case she would rather put more stress on a client she isn't in the best interest of children she is in the best interest of a pay check.

Krista Nash

Replied last March 05, 2026

Because online reviews do not verify the identity or role of the reviewer in a case, I cannot determine the circumstances being referenced or respond to the specific allegations. Ethical rules and court obligations also prevent discussion of any individual matter in a public forum. In family law matters, I serve in different roles — including as counsel for parents and in court-appointed roles involving children. These matters often involve highly contested situations where individuals may strongly disagree with the professional recommendations made or the legal outcomes reached. My responsibility in every case is to follow the law, comply with court orders, and focus on the best interests of the children involved. The statements in this review do not accurately reflect my professional conduct or the work of my firm. We take our responsibilities to families and children very seriously and approach every matter with diligence, preparation, and care. For those seeking a fuller picture of our work, I encourage prospective clients to review the many five-star reviews from individuals who have worked directly with our firm on Google.

Posted by Mary | January 25, 2023

Awful CFI experience

My experience with Krista is as a CFI. I have never been more shocked and disappointed. This woman holds power over people’s lives, and she testified in court that she didn’t have time to read all the evidence provided in the case. But she did have the time to still give a recommendation on its outco...me. The CFI report contained fourteen sworn statements with witnesses saying they had seen father abuse and/or drink excessively around his children. Krista took this as evidence of Mother’s criminal masterminding abilities to coerce fourteen people to lie rather than as corroboration of Mother’s testimony that Father is abusive. Furthermore, she testified that “mother portrayed herself as a victim.” She didn’t even consider that perhaps Mother and her children were victims. She never reached out to any of the witnesses to discuss their statements. Krista said that based on what she saw, Father was an attentive and loving dad. She based this conclusion on a single two hour visit. As if people can’t behave accordingly for two hours. Finally, she called Mother selfish because she wanted to move back to her home and away from her cheating husband and his new family. Mother has spent her entire life working for her children. The nerve it takes to call a stay at home mom selfish is beyond measure. Please don’t put your fate in this woman’s hands, and certainly don’t do it if you are a woman. She’ll only see you as a selfish, play-acting victim and will not take the time to read or review the facts.

Krista Nash

Replied last March 05, 2026

This review appears to reference my work as a court-appointed Child and Family Investigator (CFI). CFIs are neutral professionals appointed by the court to gather information from multiple sources and provide recommendations to the court in contested family law matters. Because online reviews do not verify a reviewer’s identity or role in a case, and because CFIs are bound by strict confidentiality obligations, I cannot address the specific claims made here or discuss the details of any individual matter. CFI investigations require reviewing information from many sources and making independent assessments based on the investigation conducted and the standards set by the court. It is not uncommon in highly contested cases for individuals to strongly disagree with a CFI’s conclusions or recommendations. However, the statements in this review do not accurately reflect the CFI process or my professional conduct. My focus in every matter is fulfilling the responsibilities assigned by the court with diligence and care and keeping the well-being of the children involved at the center of the work. For those seeking a fuller picture of my work, I encourage prospective clients to review the many five-star reviews from individuals who have worked directly with my firm on Google.

See All Client Reviews

Krista Vivian Nash's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse Krista

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't received any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't created any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

Experience

Rating:  6.2 (Good)

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
10.0 - 9.0 Superb8.9 - 8.0 Excellent7.9 - 7.0 Very Good6.9 - 6.0 Good5.9 - 5.0 Average4.9 - 4.0 Concern3.9 - 3.0 Caution2.9 - 2.0 Strong Caution1.9 - 1.0 Extreme Caution