Barbara Saban should be removed from her appointment as a PRE because while she is qualified on paper, she completely failed as a professional and our family was almost torn apart because of her inability to do her job. I would never recommend her. After 8 years of constant litigation initiated by his ex, and 17 months of litigation that included Ms. Saban’s PRE investigation, my husband retained full custody and decision-making authority for his children for the 5th time AND was awarded relocation by the court in December 2022. Ms. Saban did not even consider the very basic fact that father has retained custody and decision making for 8 years during her investigation. Ms. Saban is biased, unfair, and did not have an awareness of correct legal standard of her appointment. She failed to meet the requirements of the Chief Justice directives implemented 1/1/2022. She spent more time talking about herself, her kids, her dogs and her life growing up on the east coast and a farm than she did investigating our case. She did not ask anything about our home in the city we wanted to relocate to, nor the city and did not investigate the schools. She spent more than twice as much time on PCI’s with the children’s mother than she did with their father. But don’t take my word for it. Here are a few statements about Ms. Saban from the public court order (names of minor children, professionals and/or witnesses have been removed for privacy): • The Court is concerned the PRE did not complete the psychological evaluation on Mother, even though a prior evaluation raised concerns. • The PRE recommended a change in the majority parent (and an allocation of sole decision-making to Mother if Father relocates without children) ... however, no actual physical or emotional harm was advanced. • While the PRE did not exceed the broad scope of the order appointing her, [Work Product Review Specialist] opined that she essentially rubber stamped the CFI’s report and adopted Mother’s narrative. The Court agrees with this assessment. • A PRE is required to be a mental health professional with the experience and training set forth in C.R.S. 14-10-127. While the PRE here has the required credentials, her report fails to adequately address the mental health issues in this case. • The PRE never even spoke with [minor child’s] new therapist before opining the change in therapists was detrimental. • A PRE can do psych evals while a CFI cannot. As noted above, the PRE did not even require Mother complete the evaluation in this case. • The PRE failed to produce a complete copy of her file. • She did not address the veracity of either party’s positions. • She alleged [minor child] went several months without therapy when it was only a few weeks. • She alleged Father refused to provide releases that she never requested or that she already had. • She only spoke to [family therapist] when Father intervened via counsel. But then she did not provide his report. • She focused on [minor child’s] dated psych eval rather than the current brain mapping. • She did not reschedule Mother’s psych eval. Instead, she relied on the input of Mother’s therapist who is not qualified to render an opinion and who is Mother’s advocate and not objective. • She amended her report at Mother’s request, but made no amendments at Father’s request. • She failed to consider Father’s concerns despite his requests identified in exhibit. • She spent 7 hours at Mother’s home visits and less than two hours at Father’s home (she spent 5 hours total but 90 minutes driving each way). • The PRE ignored the audio recordings Father provided confirming that Mother still disparages Father. • She did not do an interactional with Father. • Moreover, [Work Product Review Specialist] opined that the PRE’s findings and recommendations regarding decision making and parenting time are not supported by statute or case law. • Neither the CFI nor the PRE considered the significance of Father’s primary role.