Statement of Serious Concern Regarding Judicial Conduct, Due Process, and Systemic Failures in…read moreFamily Court
Family courts wield extraordinary authority over the lives of parents and children. With that authority comes a legal and ethical obligation to act with impartiality, professionalism, and strict adherence to constitutional protections. When those obligations are not upheld, the consequences are profound--not only for individual families, but for public confidence in the justice system itself.
In my experience within the San Joaquin County family court system, including proceedings involving Judge Cheryl McCanne, Judge Jonathan Fattarsi, Judge Danielle Ramirez, Commissioner Robin Apple, and mediator Marisol Enos, I have observed troubling patterns that raise serious concerns about transparency, professionalism, and adherence to the rule of law.
Court proceedings involving the safety and well-being of children should be treated with the highest level of seriousness and integrity. Yet in my experience, I have witnessed conduct that appears dismissive and unprofessional, including moments in which proceedings involving children's welfare were treated in a manner that felt inappropriate for the gravity of the issues at hand. When families are seeking protection and fairness from the court, the process should never feel like a mockery of the suffering being described.
Equally concerning are procedural barriers that make it difficult to verify what actually occurred during hearings. Parents must be able to review court recordings and ensure that written orders accurately reflect what was stated in open court. When access to recordings is limited or when written minute orders appear inconsistent with statements made during the hearing, it undermines the transparency that due process requires.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the relationship between parent and child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, the Court affirmed that parental rights are among the oldest and most protected liberties in American law. Likewise, in Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, the Court held that the government must exercise the utmost care and procedural fairness when interfering with parental rights because the consequences are so severe.
California law also contains safeguards designed to preserve the integrity of judicial proceedings, including:
* California Penal Code §118 - prohibiting perjury under oath
* California Penal Code §§132-134 - prohibiting the presentation or preparation of false evidence
* California Penal Code §182 - addressing conspiracies that interfere with lawful judicial processes
* California Family Code §3027.1 - authorizing sanctions when knowingly false allegations are used in custody disputes
Judicial officers are bound by the California Code of Judicial Ethics, which requires integrity, impartiality, and the avoidance of conduct that creates even the appearance of impropriety. Oversight of these obligations is entrusted to the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
Family court should never become a system where legal procedures are used in ways that feel coercive, manipulative, or dismissive of legitimate concerns regarding the safety and welfare of children. When parents believe that their voices are ignored, that evidence is disregarded, or that they are being forced through unnecessary procedural hurdles, it raises legitimate questions about whether the system is functioning as intended.
The issues raised here extend beyond a single case. They reflect a broader concern about whether families without financial resources or influence are being treated with the same fairness and dignity as those with greater access to power and representation. Justice must never depend on status, relationships, or resources. The law demands equal protection for every parent and every child.
These concerns will be submitted to the appropriate oversight and accountability institutions for review, including the California Commission on Judicial Performance, appellate courts, relevant state authorities, and other agencies responsible for ensuring that the administration of justice remains lawful and ethical. Public institutions function best when serious concerns are examined transparently and thoroughly.
The purpose of raising these issues is not to undermine the judiciary, but to insist that the principles of fairness, due process, and accountability remain at the center of family court proceedings. When the rights of children and parents are at stake, the justice system must be held to the highest possible standard.
