Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Oversight Requests topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple speakers urge Orange County supervisors to seek DOJ/FBI investigations of family and probate courts
Summary
During item‑specific and general public comment, many speakers alleged long‑running misconduct in family and probate courts and urged the board to publicly call for independent DOJ and FBI investigations; supervisors repeatedly told speakers the board has limited jurisdiction over courts and noted alternative complaint options.
A large group of speakers used the Dec. 2 meeting—both during an agendized child‑support item and the general public comment period—to demand that the Orange County Board of Supervisors call for independent investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI into alleged misconduct in family and probate courts.
Multiple speakers (Julie Anderson Holburn, Bridget Butler, Glenn, Nick Colleff and others) named judges, guardians ad litem, court‑appointed evaluators and county actors, and alleged patterns of harm, cover‑ups and retaliation. Calls for immediate action were repeated across many speakers: "We demand transparency. We demand accountability, and we demand your public commitment today to call for a full independent investigation into the Orange County Family Court and Probate Court and CPS," one speaker said.
County counsel and several supervisors clarified that the board does not have authority over the judicial branch; multiple supervisors advised complainants on existing processes such as filing complaints with the Commission on Judicial Performance or state/federal law enforcement where appropriate. When the courtroom record covered sensitive allegations, the board repeatedly urged speakers to keep comments within order and to return during general comment for broader grievances.
The board did not take formal investigatory action in response to the public comments; supervisors asked staff to point to complaint avenues and referenced limits of county authority. Several speakers said they would continue to press for outside investigations of courts and court‑affiliated professionals.
This item represents an extended public demand for oversight of the family and probate courts; the board’s public response emphasized jurisdictional limits and referral options rather than initiating an independent investigation.
