EXCLUSIVE: OC Supervisor Races Driven by Parents Who Say They Were Ignored by the System—Now Running to Confront It

Orange County, California — 2026 Election Cycle

Mar 25, 2026

In Orange County, two Board of Supervisors races are being shaped not by career politicians but by professional women who say they were ignored, silenced and retaliated against when they tried to protect their children. Now, they are taking their fight to the ballot box.

Candidates Lucy Vellema (District 5) and Kimberly Davis (District 2) describe a similar path: they raised concerns within the family court system, sought help through official channels, and ultimately brought those concerns to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. They say those efforts were dismissed.

Several California political candidates have publicly addressed similar concerns, including gubernatorial candidates Chad Bianco, Steve Hilton, Lewis Herms and Daniel Mercuri, as well as attorney general candidate Michael Gates, who have spoken about accountability and oversight within family court and child welfare systems.

Districts 2 and 5 are among the seats drawing heightened attention this election cycle. Davis is running against Supervisor Vincent Sarmiento, along with candidates James Wallace and Nelinda Mendoza. Vellema and Diane Dixon are challenging Supervisor Katrina Foley. Assemblymember Diane Dixon, a member of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and previously served as co-chair. She is married to senior Orange County deputy district attorney Pat Dixon.

Both Vellema and Davis have spoken at Board of Supervisors meetings and participated in local press conferences and protests in recent years.

From Advocacy to Escalation

Vellema and Davis are part of a broader group of Orange County parents who have publicly challenged family court operations, CPS responses, judges and the role of court-appointed professionals in custody cases.

According to their accounts, what began as efforts to advocate for their children’s safety escalated into prolonged legal disputes, restricted access to their children, and, in most cases, retaliation for reporting abuse or speaking out.

After turning to county and state leadership for intervention, many parents say they encountered a consistent response: NO ONE would act.

That message became explicit during a Dec. 2 Board of Supervisors meeting, when Supervisor Don Wagner told parents:

“You can come here and complain about the courts, but we’re going to sit here and do nothing… Hire a lawyer. Take it up with the lawyers.”

For those in attendance, the exchange marked a turning point—shifting concerns from individual cases to a broader public issue.

From Public Comment to Political Campaigns

For Vellema and Davis, the path now defining their campaigns follows a clear progression:

Courtrooms → County Government → Public Protest → Recall Efforts → Political Candidacy

After receiving no action from county or state leadership, parents organized:

Public protests across Orange County
Calls for state and federal investigation
Recall efforts targeting multiple Orange County judges

Some of those same voices are now seeking elected office, arguing that change will require new leadership rather than internal reform.

Several California political candidates have also publicly addressed concerns about family court and child welfare systems, including gubernatorial candidates and statewide officials, reflecting a broader policy debate beyond Orange County.

Two Candidates, One Core Issue: Accountability

Both candidates center their campaigns on what they describe as a lack of accountability across systems intended to protect families.

Lucy Vellema (District 5)

In her voter guide response, Vellema identified family court oversight as the district’s most urgent issue:

“These issues pale in comparison to the abuse of children and elderly in Family Court… Judges are denying due process to protective parents; rewarding abusers with sole custody.”

She calls for increased transparency in court proceedings, enforcement of reporting requirements, and greater oversight of court-related systems.

Kimberly Davis (District 2)

Davis, a federal analyst and small business owner, frames the issue more broadly:

“The biggest issue… is a lack of accountability in the systems that are supposed to protect and serve our residents… too many people feel unheard, overlooked, or failed entirely.”

She proposes independent oversight, performance-based budgeting, and increased transparency in county-funded programs.

“When there’s no transparency, there’s no accountability—and without accountability, there’s no real justice.”

The Role of the Board—and the Limits of Its Authority

The Orange County Board of Supervisors does not oversee judicial rulings. However, it controls billions of dollars in county funding, contracts and oversight mechanisms, including those tied to social services and court-adjacent programs.

State law allows counties to establish multidisciplinary task forces addressing violence against women under California Penal Code §§ 14140–14143. While Orange County participates in state-linked initiatives and grant-funded programs—such as those connected to the Children’s Justice Act (CJA)—it is unclear whether the Board has created or implemented a formal, county-established task force as contemplated under those provisions.

According to information from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), participants in CJA-related efforts have included judicial officers, prosecutors and nonprofit representatives. Individuals identified in those efforts include former Orange County Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez, Orange County District Attorney’s Office representative Juliet L. Oliver, and Erin Runnion of The Joyful Child Foundation. Hernandez is currently the subject of a judicial recall effort.

The Children’s Justice Act establishes a federally funded, state-administered framework designed to evaluate and improve how child abuse cases are investigated, prosecuted and handled within the court system.

“…in a manner which reduces the additional trauma to the child victim and the victim’s family.”

In California, the program is administered through Cal OES and implemented through related initiatives operating across local jurisdictions, including Orange County.

CJA-related funding supports training and coordination programs, including child abduction training, evaluator program, minors’ counsel program and school resource officer training.

Advocates say the absence of a clearly defined, county-led coordinating body raises questions about consistency, oversight and accountability across agencies involved in child welfare and family court-related matters.

Critics argue the Board has not used its existing authority—including control over funding and contracts—to address longstanding concerns related to family court practices and CPS involvement.

Wagner’s Comments and Ongoing Questions

The Dec. 2 meeting remains central to that criticism.

At the meeting, this reporter observed multiple parents ask the Board to intervene and request a federal investigation.

Supervisors Katrina Foley and Doug Chaffee responded briefly. Several parents in attendance described those responses as dismissive, and some specifically criticized Foley’s demeanor, saying their concerns were not addressed.

Parents and advocates continue to cite remarks by Supervisor Don Wagner, in which he said the Board would “do nothing,” as evidence of what they describe as institutional inaction.

In subsequent public appearances, including a March 2026 television interview, Wagner called for reforms in other areas of the court system, including juvenile and probation matters.

That contrast has prompted questions from critics about why similar attention has not been directed toward concerns involving family and probate courts.

Wagner is currently seeking higher office. His wife, Orange County Superior Court Probate Judge Megan Wagner, is among those named in ongoing judicial recall efforts.

From Local Complaints to Political Movement

What began as individual disputes has evolved into a broader movement in Orange County, including:

Organized protests
Judicial recall campaigns
Public testimony before elected officials
Calls for state and federal investigation

Now, that movement is entering electoral politics.

Vellema and Davis are among a group of candidates who say their experiences led them to seek office as a way to address systemic concerns.

The Stakes in 2026

The races challenge incumbents:

District 2: Vincent Sarmiento
District 5: Katrina Foley

For voters, the issue has moved beyond courtrooms and public comment periods.

It is now on the ballot.

The Question Ahead

For decades, parents say they were told to address their concerns within the same court systems they say harmed their families.

Now, they are bringing those concerns to voters.

The question facing Orange County is not only who should lead—but whether those who say they were unheard within those systems will finally be heard at the ballot box.

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:

Dr. Dan D

Mar 25

Wow… outstanding research. Your investigative journalism is honestly top notch. Best of luck to Lucy and Kim. We’ll be voting for them.

Richard Luthmann

This is what real grassroots revolt looks like. Not activists chasing headlines—parents pushed to the brink who decided the system won’t fix itself. When people like Lucy Vellema and Kimberly Davis go from courtrooms to the ballot box, that’s not politics—that’s survival. They were told to sit down, be quiet, “hire a lawyer.” Now they’re running the table instead. That should terrify every entrenched insider in Orange County. Because once voters connect the dots between broken courts and broken leadership, the whole machine is in play. And when parents lead the charge, they don’t back down—they finish it.

1 more comment...

Julie M. Anderson-Holburn

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?