Updated Feb. 8, 2026, 11:03 a.m
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — Six additional Orange County Superior Court family law and probate judges were formally served Tuesday, Jan. 20, by Orange County parents and family members with notices of intention to recall, bringing the total to 12 sitting judges now facing recall efforts. Citizens working together said hundreds of parents participated, gathering and signing the notices in support of the recall.
Community members behind the effort say the extraordinary action reflects escalating public concern based on what families and legal professionals report observing—and what children and elderly individuals have experienced—including systemic corruption, judicial misconduct, and repeated failures to protect vulnerable populations within the county’s family and probate court systems.
The six judges served Tuesday are Thomas Lo, Carmen Luege, Ami Segal, Shelia Recio, Megan Wagner, and Erin Rowe.
The judges served on Dec. 17 include Carol L. Henson, Julie A. Palafox, Stephen Hicklin, Mary Kreber-Varipapa, Kimberly Maynard Carasso, and Maria D. Hernandez.
Initial Deadlines
The Orange County Registrar of Voters notified each judge by email that a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition was filed Jan. 20. Under California Elections Code § 11023, judges have until Jan. 27 at 5 p.m. to file an optional written response of up to 200 words. Any response must also be served on one of the recall proponents by the same deadline.
Service Marked by Hostility and Alleged Assault
Service across multiple justice centers was contentious. According to witnesses, court staff at several locations attempted to evade or refuse service. In one instance, a bailiff allegedly exited the courtroom and threw the recall documents into a public hallway after service was completed. Witnesses also reported an alleged physical assault of a witness following service at the Lamoreaux Justice Center. At only one of the justice centers, a clerk accepted service without incident.
Why Judicial Recall Exists in California
Judicial recall is a cornerstone Progressive Era reform, adopted in 1911, when California voters amended the state Constitution to allow the recall of judges alongside legislators and executive officials. Reformers warned that unchecked trial-court authority could quietly enable favoritism, corruption, or systemic abuse. Recall was designed as a last-resort safeguard when institutional oversight fails and public confidence collapses.
“How best can we arm the people to protect themselves hereafter? … We can give to the people the means by which they may accomplish such other reforms as they desire … The first step … shall be the adoption of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall.”
— Gov. Hiram Johnson, Inaugural Address, Jan. 3, 1911
From Recall to Oversight—and Back Again
A historical analysis published in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review concluded that by 1937, California’s three traditional mechanisms for addressing unfit judges—recall, impeachment, and internal oversight—were viewed as “awkward, inefficient, and incapable” of meeting the demands of judicial discipline. That assessment led to the 1960 constitutional amendment creating the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, later renamed the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP) in 1976.
Since 1995, the CJP reports removing only 14 judges, issuing 50 public censures, 17 public reprovals, and 132 public admonishments, in addition to private discipline.
In Orange County, Superior Court judges are often elected without opposition, a dynamic critics say has contributed to systemic harm and eroded public confidence in the bench.
What Families Allege
The coordinated recall effort follows years of complaints from parents, adult children, family members, caregivers, advocates, and legal observers alleging:
Retaliation against those who raise safety concerns or report abuse
Due process violations and exclusion of evidence
Perjury
Suppression of child and elder abuse
Separation from children or elderly family memebers
Prolonged, costly litigation that depletes family assets and estates
Removal of children from protective parents without substantiated findings
Punitive sanctions and denial of ADA accommodations
Mandatory, extended monitored visitation and costly custody evaluations absent adverse findings
Advocates also point to alleged conflicts involving court-appointed minors’ counsel, guardians ad litem, and court-affiliated professionals who continue to receive lucrative appointments and public contracts while families report repeated harm.
A National Reckoning
The Orange County recall effort coincides with a broader national reckoning. California gubernatorial candidates debating in Orange County on Jan. 10—see video below—publicly acknowledged decades of failures in family court and Child Protective Services systems. Recent Arizona legislative hearings, an Idaho task force, Dr. Bandy X. Lee’s conference at the National Press Club, and growing protests and social media campaigns further reflect mounting calls for accountability nationwide.
Why This Moment Matters
Judicial recalls are rare and difficult to initiate. That twelve sitting judges were served in a coordinated effort—and that service itself prompted allegations of obstruction—underscores the depth of public concern.
For many families, the notice of intention to recall represents what they say has long been absent from the system: accountability.
“This is the first time we’ve felt seen,” one parent said. “Not just by the court—but by the public.”
Additional reporting, records, and testimony related to the recall effort are expected in the coming days.
This ongoing series on the Orange County, California family and probate court and CPS corruption crisis—and the broader nationwide family court crisis—aims to bring national attention to systemic failures and to advocate for meaningful reform and accountability.
This article is investigative reporting intended for public-information and public-interest purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney or qualified legal professional. References to laws, court proceedings, or legal processes are presented for journalistic and informational purposes.
The time for action is now. Lawmakers, the media, and the public must act together to demand justice, accountability, and protection for families and children.
Are you committed to protecting America’s children and restoring integrity to our legal system?
Contact your legislative representatives. Speak out. Reach out to media outlets. And vote.
Find your state and federal legislative representatives HERE.
Find out what your legislators are doing on a weekly basis HERE.
Whistleblowers and victims of family court, CPS, probate court, IDEA/ADA or foster care corruption anywhere in the U.S.—please contact this reporter at juliea005@proton.me or rjh.investigative.reports@gmail.com.
Together, we can ignite a national movement and create lasting change.
Julie M. Anderson-Holburn is a California-based investigative journalist reporting on criminal and family court corruption, judicial abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and systemic failures. Her work is published on NewsBreak, Substack, and The Family Court Circus, and has been featured by the Center for Judicial Excellence and National Safe Parents. Julie believes that exposing the truth is the first step toward meaningful reform.
This article was made possible by the support of readers like you. Thank you.
Related coverage:
UPDATE: Six Orange County Family Court Judges Respond to Recall Petitions
BREAKING: Six Orange County Family Court Judges Served With Recall Petitions
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — Rally and Court Watchers Requested for Nov. 7 in Orange County, Calif.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—COURT WATCHERS REQUESTED FOR OCT. 20 GISELLE SMIEL CASE IN LOS ANGELES
Orange County DA’s Office: Jury Awards $3M Over Culture of Malice and Retaliation Against Women
Leanne fled the country to escape domestic abuse. Now she could face jail.
The Victims of Jessica St. Clair, Parents and Children Share Their Trauma, Part Two
Whistleblowers Reveal Corruption in Orange County Family Courts and Beyond
Orange County DA’s Office Hostile to Women: Unprotected OC Women Suffer Under Spitzer’s Retaliation
Orange County Protest to Spotlight Family, Probate and Juvenile Court Failures, Sept. 17
Orange County Parents Speak Out Against Family Court and CPS in Nationwide Protest
Retaliation in Hackensack: Dr. Bandy X. Lee, Bruce Fein Confront Family Court Over First Amendment
Arizona’s Final Committee Hearing on Family Court Failures and the National Reform It Demands
Octo-Mom’s Former Attorney Sued: Client Alleges Collusion and Rigged Custody Case
Exclusive: OC Custody Evaluator Under Investigation After Molestation Case; BBS Ignored Complaints
Exclusive: Unveiling the legal battle in Orange County that no one else dares to report
Thank you for organizing this. My wife and I have been in probate court since April 2014. We woke up at 3:30am today to read about the 12 Judges. A floodlight has been turned on! I have a lot to say about this situation, hopefully we can share more about what needs to be exposed.
This is where movements live or die. Service is easy. Signatures are hell. Orange County isn’t some sleepy rural county—you’re talking hundreds of thousands of valid signatures, tight timelines, hostile institutions, and zero margin for error. Judges know this. They’re betting the parents burn out. The system always bets on exhaustion. If recall leaders don’t lock down funding, centralized signature tracking, legal review, and ground captains fast, this becomes another “almost.” But if they do? It’s a political earthquake. This isn’t about feelings anymore. It’s logistics versus rot. Tick. Tock.