OCDA Ignores Good Cause Law, Family Court Violates Due Process in Tawny Minna Grossman Case

130 Years of Legal Precedent Disregarded Amid Intimidation, Coercion, and Cover-Ups

Mar 10, 2025

Ayla and Asher’s art work of Love during monitored visitation done on Tawny’s arms. March 2, 2025. Photo by Julie M Anderson Holburn

A series of judicial and prosecutorial missteps in Orange County have placed Nurse Practitioner and protective mother Tawny Minna Grossman at the center of a legal battle exposing systemic failures in family court and the criminal justice system.

Despite clear evidence of abuse against her children, Grossman has been criminally prosecuted and stripped of contact and custody, raising serious concerns about judicial overreach, due process violations, and the abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) has no answers.

The Case Against Tawny Minna Grossman

During Grossman’s criminal proceedings, District Attorney Investigator (DAI) Joe Faria testified that the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) aims to "keep families together" and that Grossman was given a Good Cause Waiver form—a critical legal protection under California Penal Code § 278.7 for parents fleeing domestic violence or child abuse.

However, records reveal that Grossman was never provided this form, nor was she informed of its existence by Laura’s House, the domestic violence shelter where she sought refuge.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer

Public records indicate that OCDA officials, particularly Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Tammy Jacobs and Faria obstructed Grossman’s ability to access legal protections.

Documents obtained show despite documented findings of abuse and sexual abuse by mandated reporters, the family court—under Judge Carmen Luege and later Judge Paul Minerich—refused to acknowledge Grossman’s claims, instead issuing orders that stripped her of custody and denied her due process.

Records further show that Grossman did, in fact, communicate with OCDA as required under Penal Code § 278.7, a key element that has been deliberately covered up and omitted in family and criminal court proceedings. While Faria testified that he provided Grossman with a Good Cause Waiver form, documents indicate he only vaguely referenced it. In written communication to Grossman, Faria stated:

“I assume the advocate told you our office receives the Good Cause Reports (per 278.7 PC) when a parent seeks assistance from a DV advocate or shelter, making our office the go-to unit for these situations. The key is communication; you have to communicate so we can address this matter.”

Yet, documents obtained reveal that Laura’s House informed Grossman that the shelter was receiving intense and aggressive contact from OCDA’s Tammy Jacobs and, out of concern for Tawny’s and her children’s safety, advised her to relocate to another shelter to continue receiving domestic violence support services and process her application for enrollment in the California Secretary of State's Safe at Home program.

Grossman then communicated with Faria through a new advocate, informing him that her children were safe, healing from abuse, and that Judge Luege’s orders—issued without jurisdiction—were pending appeal.

She also alerted OCDA to a writ she had filed, obstruction of justice, perjury, violations of due process and her constitutional rights.

Despite her clear compliance with Penal Code § 278.7, OCDA proceeded with prosecuting her, raising serious concerns about whether exculpatory evidence was deliberately concealed from the courts.

Why Was the FBI Not Involved?

In cases involving alleged custodial interference across state or international borders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) typically takes jurisdiction, as such matters fall under federal law, including the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) of 1993 and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).

The lack of FBI involvement in Grossman’s case raises serious concerns about selective enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct.

Jurisdictional Oversight – If Tawny had actually violated federal laws regarding custodial interference, the FBI should have been the primary agency investigating her, not just OCDA. The lack of FBI involvement suggests there may not have been sufficient grounds for federal charges, meaning OCDA could be overstepping its authority by prosecuting her.
Good Cause Exception (Penal Code § 278.7) – California law provides a legal defense for parents fleeing domestic violence or child abuse, which Tawny attempted to invoke. If OCDA were handling the case properly, federal agencies like the FBI should have reviewed the situation before pursuing criminal charges. The fact that the FBI did not step in suggests that Tawny’s actions may not have met the threshold for a federal offense, undermining OCDA’s claims against her.
Pattern of Prosecutorial Misconduct in OCDA – The absence of FBI involvement could indicate that OCDA was handling the case as a local, politically motivated prosecution rather than a legitimate criminal case. If the FBI were involved, they would have reviewed the evidence objectively, potentially preventing OCDA from pursuing charges that ignore the Good Cause Waiver protections under California law.
Potential Cover-Up or Bias Against Protective Parents – If the FBI determined that the case did not warrant federal intervention, it raises the possibility that OCDA is intentionally misrepresenting the case to frame Tawny as a criminal rather than a protective mother. This would be consistent with other Orange County family court patterns of suppressing evidence of abuse and targeting protective parents through unjust prosecutions.

The absence of FBI involvement suggests either that OCDA knew the case did not warrant federal attention or that federal intervention would have exposed due process violations and misconduct in the Orange County court system. If Tawny’s case had legitimate federal grounds, why was the highest authority on custodial interference cases absent?

Request for Comment

This journalist reached out to the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for comment regarding the prosecution of Tawny Minna Grossman and the apparent lack of federal involvement in a case that typically falls under FBI jurisdiction.

At the time of publication, neither agency had responded. This article will be updated should a response be received.

Judicial Overreach and Due Process Violations: Judge Carmen Luege’s Unlawful Orders

In December 2023, Judge Carmen Luege refused to recuse herself from Grossman’s custody case despite a formal judicial disqualification motion citing bias.

California law requires a third-party judge to review such motions, but no review occurred. Instead, Luege continued presiding over the case, issuing 13 custody orders in 2024—orders that legal experts argue should now be void.

Legal precedent suggests Luege had no jurisdiction to issue these orders, making OCDA’s actions based on them legally questionable.

Yet, both the family court and OCDA proceeded as if they were valid, disregarding over 130 years of established case law.

Judge Paul Minerich’s Handling of the Case

This reporter attended the March 7, 2025, hearing, where Judge Paul Minerich made a series of troubling comments indicating bias and a failure to uphold due process.

He dismissed Grossman’s arguments for custody restoration, stating, “You can’t put on your case because of the criminal case.” He further questioned her trustworthiness as a parent, cut her off multiple times, and repeatedly deferred proceedings, telling her to be “patient upon patient.”

Minors' counsel Tracy Willis stated that before transitioning off monitored visitation, the court needed to see evidence such as courses, classes, and evaluations.

Tracy Willis of A Center for Children & Family Law.

Willis remarked, “I am still hearing that Mrs. Grossman—I don’t want to use the word validated, but she is not—she believes that her conduct...” Judge Minerich interrupted, stating, “She is not taking responsibility for the conduct in a way that the criminal system is imposing it on her, that’s for sure.”

Willis added, “This leaves me with concerns about having any unmonitored visits or unprofessional monitor.” Minerich agreed, stating, “We can’t go unmonitored.”

When Grossman attempted to clarify that she was not a flight risk—citing mitigating factors such as relinquishing her passport, strong family ties, and California Family Code § 3048—Minerich dismissed her argument, stating, “It’s not just the flight risk.” When she asked what else it was, he responded, “It is the position you’ve taken with regards to your flight—and that it is okay to do that and that it’s the father’s fault. I haven’t seen anything with regard to what Ms. Willis is suggesting regarding your own improvement on this issue.”

Minerich continued, “Instead of filing more litigation, you should file more evidence of what you have done in regard to this case. But again, we are off subject. I will ask you again, ma’am—I am not going to order unmonitored at this point; I don’t have any basis for that.”

Judge Minerich also stated his intent to remove Grossman’s Motion to Vacate—scheduled for hearing on March 27, 2025—citing that it duplicated legal arguments from a November 2024 supplemental declaration. He referenced a minute order from November 21, 2024, which purportedly dismissed the argument.

However, that order was not filed into the register of actions until after January 3, 2025. Minerich acknowledged that the order had not been signed, and Grossman informed the court that she had no knowledge of its existence as it was never served to the parties—effectively preventing her from challenging it.

Subject Matter Expert: Domestic Violence Advocacy

Nadeya Lavandero, President, Founder, and Executive Director of Right to Protect, a court-qualified domestic violence expert, who has been trained in the laws, limitations, and protocols regarding Good Cause Waivers on behalf of victims.

Lavandero, who works with district attorneys and their child abduction units in submitting Good Cause Waivers, provided the following statement:

“Any notice made upon OCDA by a victim fleeing domestic violence or child abuse should satisfy the requirements under Penal Code § 278.7. It is not the victim’s responsibility to ensure the DA’s Office processes a Good Cause Waiver. In Tawny Minna Grossman’s case, OCDA has refused to implement legal protections, instead weaponizing the system against her. Their prosecutorial discretion has been abused to punish rather than protect, sending a terrifying message to victims that seeking safety will result in criminal prosecution rather than legal refuge.”

DA Investigator Joe Faria in Orange County Superior Court (in all black). June 12, 2024. Photo by Brad Conley.

OCDA’s Prosecutorial Misconduct and Weaponization of the System

Despite legal precedents protecting parents who withhold children due to abuse concerns, OCDA pursued aggressive criminal charges against Grossman. Key examples of misconduct include:

Failure to honor the Good Cause Waiver process
Ignoring Grossman’s legal compliance under Penal Code § 278.7
Overly friendly with the Father
Pushing for a jury trial instead of considering mental health diversion
Misrepresenting facts to the court including regarding witness cooperation
Attempting to issue a bench warrant against Grossman’s mother despite OCDA failing to provide a remote appearance link
Subpoenaing Grossman’s father’s phone records in an apparent effort to intimidate her support network
Subpoenaing this reporter to hinder coverage of the case
Following and attempting to intimidate this reporter while covering the case, view videos here:

A System Rigged Against Protective Parents

If Orange County’s family court and OCDA continue to violate laws and suppress evidence in child abuse cases, urgent independent oversight is needed. The California Attorney General’s Office and the State Bar must investigate the actions of OCDA, DDA Tammy Jacobs, and Judges Luege and Minerich in what appears to be a gross miscarriage of justice.

Will justice prevail for Tawny Minna Grossman and her children, or will Orange County continue silencing protective parents through judicial corruption and prosecutorial misconduct?

Julie M. Anderson-Holburn

Discussion about this post