Parents and advocates urge investigation into family‑court practices during Volusia County Council public comments

Dozens of residents used the Volusia County Council’s public-comment periods to describe alleged misconduct, lack of due process and problems with local family‑court and juvenile‑court procedures. Speakers — parents, advocates and attorneys — described urgent personal cases, asked the council to seek oversight and requested an independent review of local court-related processes.

Janet Potsuk described what she called a false arrest she said followed district‑court actions in a related family matter. Troy Henderson and others told the council they were denied meaningful hearings or access to counsel, described allegedly improper ex parte orders, and said guardians ad litem and court officers had engaged in off‑the‑record communications and other conduct they regard as misconduct.

Tara Lau, Michelle Rutkowski and other parents said children had been removed from parental care in ways they described as traumatic and without adequate due process; those speakers urged local officials to investigate guardian ad litem practices, mail‑handling and court record integrity. Several speakers referenced state and federal procedures by name — including the UCCJEA (interstate custody rules) and Florida statute responsibilities — and expressed concern about related compliance and record‑keeping.

Speakers also included advocates who asked the county to expand supportive services for survivors of domestic violence and to investigate how county funding and local agencies intersect with child‑welfare processes.

In response, county staff and the council clarified roles: judges and court procedures are part of the state judicial branch and not directly subject to county control. The county manager and county attorney said the council lacks authority to direct judicial action. Staff did note the county may have limited administrative relationships with non‑judicial actors — for example, the county reimburses some administrative costs tied to programs used by the courts and coordinates on county facilities — and that specific operational questions (for example, whether the county received or disbursed certain mail) could be researched.

Council members acknowledged the claims and recommended that people pursue remedies available through the courts and state judicial oversight mechanisms, or, where appropriate, file formal complaints with the entities that run court administration. Several speakers said they had begun or planned litigation and that they were serving notice on county officials and others; one attorney present served affidavits alleging criminal conduct related to removal orders and advised the council that federal statutes on reporting certain crimes may also apply.

The county did not adopt any formal investigation or policy directive at the meeting. Councilmembers said they would refer procedural questions about county‑administered programs (for example, mail handling, or county staff access to court records) to county counsel to determine what administrative follow-up is possible, and they advised residents to pursue statutory oversight channels for judges and the judicial branch.