Amy Peterson, Marriage and Family Therapist — Marriage or relationship counselor in City and County of San Francisco, CA

Deeply harmful representation and repeated failures to protect a vulnerable client My experience with Amy Stoll in my dependency matter was profoundly damaging, and I am sharing this so that other parents involved in the system understand what may happen when their court-appointed counsel does not take their role seriously. From the beginning, Amy made it clear through her words and actions that she did not consider me “her client.” She said this explicitly more than once. Instead of advocating for me, she routinely minimized, dismissed, or belittled legitimate concerns — including safety issues, conflicts of interest, and procedural irregularities that most attorneys would have treated as serious red flags. On multiple occasions, she hung up on me during conversations where I was attempting to resolve urgent issues about my case or my child. I repeatedly asked to change attorneys due to our deteriorated relationship, clear conflicts of interest, and her inability or unwillingness to represent me effectively. Amy denied those requests every time. She told me it would “look bad,” that I didn’t “have a reason,” or that it “couldn’t be done,” even though it is absolutely within a client’s rights to seek new counsel — especially in a high-stakes dependency case involving allegations, agency misconduct, and contested custody. Throughout the case, Amy showed a troubling level of deference to the child-welfare agency, even when their actions were questionable, inconsistent, or unsupported by evidence. She regularly accepted the agency’s statements at face value, even when those statements contradicted: timelines, documents in the file, my actual communications, or observable facts. I also experienced repeated instances of bias, stereotyping, and inappropriate commentary about my appearance and my child’s appearance. Amy once suggested that my son and I “should be models,” a remark that felt objectifying and out of place in a legal context, and which had nothing to do with the facts of my case or the advocacy I needed from her. Comments like these contributed to an overall pattern of unprofessional behavior that made me feel profiled rather than represented. When serious issues arose — including delays, vacations taken by key personnel, irregularities in court scheduling, and other conduct that clearly affected the fairness of my case — Amy dismissed my concerns outright. She repeatedly told me there was “no problem,” even when the record showed that systemic bias and procedural failures were impacting the trajectory of my case. Amy’s approach aligned closely with the agency’s position, to the point that it often felt like she was working with them rather than advocating for me. This contributed directly to outcomes that harmed me and my child. Ultimately, she was removed from my case — but by that point the damage had already been done. The behavior I witnessed from others on the dependency panel only reinforced those same patterns: indifference, implicit bias, and a willingness to accept agency narratives without independent scrutiny. This is deeply troubling for any parent who expects their appointed counsel to safeguard their rights. Families involved in dependency court deserve attorneys who are responsive, ethical, communicative, and genuinely committed to advocating for their clients. Based on my experience, I cannot say that Amy Stoll met any of these standards.