Why I Reached Out During the Ethics Committee Hearing
- May 1
- 4 min read
Today, while attending the Minnesota House Ethics Committee hearing, I made the decision to submit an email directly to the committee during the proceedings.
Not to disrupt anything. Not to insert myself into a situation that didn’t involve me.
But because what was being discussed in that room directly mirrored what I—and many other parents across Minnesota—have been experiencing firsthand.
Throughout the hearing, there were repeated questions raised about whether legislators should hear from every member of the public that testifies. Whether testimony should be fully considered. Whether engagement with Minnesotans is being applied consistently.
Sitting there listening to that discussion, I realized something:
I didn’t need to speculate.
I already had the answer—because I’ve lived it.
Why I Sent the Email
The email I submitted to the committee wasn’t political. It wasn’t about taking sides in the ethics complaints being discussed.
It was about consistency.
If the question is whether the public should be heard, then we have to look at what actually happens in practice.
And in my experience, access to legislators—and more importantly, access to the people who control whether legislation moves forward—is not consistent.
That’s what led me to include my prior interaction with Representative Tina Liebling.
The Experience That Led to It
After weeks of being present at the Capitol, attending hearings, speaking with legislators, and advocating for family court reform, I reached out to Representative Liebling in her role as Co-Chair of the Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee.
The concerns I raised weren’t abstract. They involved:
Enforcement of existing state statutes
Federal constitutional protections
Supreme Court precedent
And how those principles are actually applied within Minnesota’s family court system
These are issues that fall directly within the jurisdiction of the committee she co-chairs.
Her response was clear.
Because I was not her constituent, she would not meet with me or hear my concerns.
Later that same day, I approached her at the Capitol to introduce myself in person.
The response was even more direct.
She stated that she knew who I was, wanted nothing to do with me, and would not speak with me.
The interaction ended there.
Why That Matters
I understand the concept of representation. Legislators are elected to represent their districts.
But committee chairs operate in a different capacity.
They are not just representatives of a district—they are gatekeepers for the legislative process.
They decide:
Which bills are heard
Which issues move forward
And which concerns receive attention
And those decisions affect every Minnesotan—not just those within a single district.
So when access to those decision-makers is limited strictly based on geography, it raises a larger question:
How does meaningful reform ever occur when the people most impacted cannot even speak to the ones in charge?
What I Saw at the Capitol
This legislative session, there have been numerous bills introduced related to family court reform.
There has also been no meaningful movement on any of them.
That disconnect—between demand and action—is what stands out.
After spending significant time at the Capitol this session, attending both House and Senate committee hearings and floor sessions, the pattern is clear:
There is no shortage of concern. There is no shortage of discussion.
But there is a lack of forward progress.
The Point I Made to the Committee
During the Ethics Committee hearing, members discussed whether legislators should sit through all committee testimony—whether they agreed with what was being said or not.
That’s the key point.
Because if that expectation exists for some members in certain situations, then it should exist for all members—especially those in leadership positions.
That was the purpose of my email.
To provide a real-world example of how that expectation is not being applied consistently.
The Bigger Picture
This isn’t about one legislator.
It’s not about one interaction.
And it’s not about one hearing.
It’s about whether the legislative process is operating in a way that actually allows for meaningful input from the people it affects.
Because when access is inconsistent, progress becomes inconsistent.
And when progress stalls—especially on issues impacting families and children—the consequences are real.
Final Thought
If the ability to petition government is going to have any real meaning, it cannot be applied selectively.
It has to be consistent.
Because without that consistency, the process may continue to operate—but it stops functioning the way it was intended.
Email Submitted to the Ethics Committee
Email Exchange Between Representative Tina Liebling and Myself
🔁 Join the Fight for Reform
I have filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging systemic misconduct by judges, attorneys, and state agencies that has stripped parents of their rights and traumatized countless children.
With 27 defendants, including the State of Minnesota, this case seeks accountability — and reform.
Join me in taking this mission national.
How You Can Help:
✅ Join the Coalition: Minnesota Family Rights Coalition
✅ Sign the Petition: Reform Minnesota’s Family Court System
✅ Sign the Petition: Urge DOJ to investigate family-court violations
✅ Subscribe: Stay updated — Contact
✅ Visit: www.ryanalvar.com
✅ Follow & Share: Real Dad Initiative
✅ Contact Your Legislators: Demand oversight for Judges, GALs and transparency in family court.
Family-court reform won’t happen unless lawmakers hear directly from the people.
If what you’ve read here troubles you, don’t stop at signing the petition—call and email your state legislators. Tell them that what has happened in this case—and in so many others—proves we need oversight for judges and guardians ad litem, uniform due-process protections, and full transparency in family courts.
📬 Not sure who represents you?
💬 Not sure what to say?
I made it easy.
👉 Start here: 🔗 Legislation
Across the country, I’ve heard from parents who’ve lost everything—many haven’t seen their children in years. When the system designed to protect families becomes the weapon that destroys them, it’s time for change. We must fix this broken family court system. Until that day, I’ll keep fighting—for our children, for truth, and for justice.
"668 days since my children were kidnapped. This isn't over."
Ryan William Alvar
Parent and Plaintiff
Comments