California Judges: The Good, the Bad, and the… San Joaquin County, Part Two

Marino v. Mackey

Jan 20, 2025

Last month, during December 2024, domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) hearings for the Marino v. Mackey case brought troubling issues to light. Mackey testified to multiple forms of abuse and intimidation, supported by video and photographic evidence. Despite this, Judge Jonathan Fattarsi appeared unpersuaded. Earlier hearings in November on the contested custody case highlighted corroborated allegations of abuse by mandatory reporters and expert testimony, which were also dismissed. Judge Fattarsi ultimately ordered the child to reunite with the father accused of abuse through reunification therapy.

As detailed in Part One of this series, Judge Fattarsi questioned whether harm “beyond sexual abuse” would occur if the child, Cole, was returned to his father. This disregard for expert testimony and Cole’s own pleas highlighted the justice system’s failure to protect its most vulnerable.

Evidence of Abuse, Coercive Control, and Intimidation

During the December DVRO hearings, Mackey presented evidence of Marino’s coercive control and abuse. Videos showed Marino following Mackey to her car during custody exchanges, ignoring her repeated pleas to stay near his vehicle. In the videos, Marino used a body-worn camera and exhibited aggressive behavior. Mackey testified that Marino followed her so closely he nearly bumped into her.

Pictures of Brandon Marino with body worn GoPro at visitation exchanges. May 17 and August 9, 2023. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn

This pattern escalated in May 2023 when Marino began using a GoPro camera, having previously relied on his cellphone to record her. Mackey detailed Marino’s history of emotional abuse, which included threats to throw her out of a moving car while pregnant, verbal shaming, and controlling behavior that left her with PTSD. Below is one video from August 9, 2023:

@mamasteffy005 California Judges: The Good, the bad, and the… San Joaquin County, part two

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Social media compounded Mackey's fear. Mackey testified that Marino relentlessly mocked her online, accused her of parental alienation, and explicitly stated he relished the attention from his posts.

Brandon Marino Facebook posts about Mackey. February and May 2024. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn.

Marino also shared pictures of Mackey on social media, publicly attacking Mackey, calling her a “deadbeat mom,” and making inflammatory comments that attracted further online harassment from his followers. These posts amplified Mackey’s fears for her safety and that of her child.

Mackey has been a stay at home mom to their son, Cole who is 6, and holds a "certificate"from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as full-time caretaker to her father, who is a disabled veteran. Mr. Mackey was a Green Beret Sergeant in the U.S. Army Special Forces, retiring in 1972 and served in the National Guard until 1998.

Marino reportedly stopped working around 2013. Authorities arrested him for a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving in August 2012, however unaware he was technically arrested Marino failed to report the arrest. This failure led the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to separate him from his position. At the time, Marino worked as a guard at San Quentin State Prison. Later the employer settled on a wrongful termination case.

Marino does not pay child support.

Pattern Viewer 2023 Report on Marino v. Mackey Child Exchanges. 2020 to 2023. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn

Mackey and Marino communicate using an app called App Close. I reviewed their messages, as well as a report on these messages prepared by PatternViewer. Using advanced technology, PatternViewer organizes, indexes, and analyzes months or even years of texts, emails, and voicemails into clear timelines and visual reports. The report concluded that Marino "exhibited behaviors that were abusive, intimidating, and threatening toward Mother." One message read: “Act like you are always being recorded because you are.”

App Close Message from Brandon Marino. July 8, 2021. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn

Pattern Viewer Report on Marino v. Mackey Communications. 2020 to 2023. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn

The report identified multiple concerning patterns of behavior by Father directed toward Mother:

Pattern Viewer Report on Marino v. Mackey, "concerning actions." 2020 to 2023. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn

Opposing Counsel’s Defense

Marino’s attorney, James Osborne, argued that Mackey’s fear was exaggerated and accused her of using the DVRO as a tactic to gain custody. Osborne relied on CPS findings—widely criticized for unreliability in California—to claim Marino posed no harm. The defense also questioned Mackey’s monitoring of Marino’s social media posts. She responded:

“I went to see what he was saying about me and out of concern for my son.”

Opposing counsel challenged Mackey on several points:

"You testified there’s no physical abuse—so PTSD was caused by only words?"
Mackey: “No. Coercive control, the messages on the app and Facebook, the behavior at exchanges, and the threats my son has witnessed and relayed.”
"Would it be fair to say you have control over Brandon?"
Mackey: “No.”
"Well, you have Cole every day. Isn’t that the same as having control over Brandon?"
Mackey: “No, it’s not the same.”

Osborne questioned Mackey’s mental health, referencing an auditory processing disorder from Mackey’s childhood, and insinuated that her PTSD was exaggerated, in attempt to undermined her claims. Osborne questioned Mackey on Marino’s claim that she “baby-trapped” him, which she denied, testifying that Marino pressured her to get an abortion.

Legal Context

California Family Code § 6203 and § 6320 provide critical legal frameworks relevant to this case:

Family Code § 6203: Defines abuse broadly, including stalking, harassment, coercive control, and behaviors that disturb the peace.
Family Code § 6320: Empowers courts to issue restraining orders to prevent abuse, including coercive control.

These statutes highlight how coercive control and psychological abuse warrant legal protection, though cases like Marinov. Mackey expose inconsistencies in their application.

Systemic Bias and Historical Parallels

Dr. Joan Meier’s recent presentation to the Santa Clara Child Abuse Prevention Council highlighted systemic biases in courts, CPS, and law enforcement against abuse claims in family law cases. Council chair James Gibbons-Shapiro echoed these concerns, emphasizing that victims often remain unprotected due to widespread disbelief of abuse allegations. (View article here)

The Marino v. Mackey case parallels the Nicole Winans case, another San Joaquin County tragedy involving the same judges. Nicole Winans was murdered after years of domestic violence reports—including incidents of strangulation—that were largely ignored. Both cases reflect judicial decisions that prioritize parental rights over child safety, perpetuating cycles of trauma and victimization. (View article here)

Other cases across California resonate strongly with the Marino v. Mackey case, including those of Tawny Minna Grossman, Frank Mogavero, and David Fish, as well as my series on Jessica St. Clair. These cases illustrate how individual, cultural, and institutional biases—along with public corruption—consistently influence outcomes that fail to serve the child’s best interests.

Final Statements and Implications

The December hearing ended with Judge Fattarsi stating:
“I’m troubled that there are so many child abuse reports but not one adverse finding against Ms. Mackey, [For coaching], I cannot continue to prioritize this case any longer.”

The judge took the DVRO matter under submission and scheduled the next hearing for January 21, 2025, to review the progress of reunification therapy between Marino and Cole.

As public scrutiny of California’s family courts grows, the outcome of this case may set a precedent. Will the courts prioritize child safety, or will they continue to fail those they are tasked to protect?

Stay tuned for further updates in this series, as we continue to investigate California’s family court system and its profound impact on children and families.

Lodi mourns beloved mom, entrepreneur killed in shooting

gp_reports