OCDA Jacobs, Faria, NBPD Fletcher, and OCSC Judge Waltz Strike Again: How Orange County Delivered Babies to a Convicted Abuser

Orange County’s Family Court Crisis — So Extreme It Defied International Norms: The Houghton Hague Case

Sep 27, 2025

OCDA Investigator Joe Faria (Bald man), NBPD Det. Mike Fletcher holding Ella Joy, a female placing the other baby in the police car, another male officer. April 10, 2024.

On April 10, 2024, in Costa Mesa, California, Multiple unmarked vehicles from the Orange County District Attorney’s Office and the Newport Beach Police Department converged on a young mother and her two toddlers in a strip-mall parking lot. Six or seven men—armed, wearing bulletproof vests, several in plain clothes—rushed Joy Houghton as she exited a hair salon with her babies.

The raid was carried out at the request of Deputy District Attorney Tammy Jacobs, acting on behalf of Gareth Naar, Houghton’s estranged husband who had been convicted in December 2023 of multiple domestic-violence offenses against her. Officers served Houghton with an OCDA warrant, seizing her nursing toddlers by force. She was ordered to appear immediately in family court.

Among those present were DA Investigator Joseph Faria and Newport Beach Detective Mike Fletcher. Just four months earlier, Naar had been convicted in Australia of three counts of common assault, one breach of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO), and one count of stalking and harassment using a carriage service—a record that formally designated him a domestic-violence offender.

Faria refused to allow Houghton even a moment to speak to, hug, or kiss her babies goodbye, and he declined to take their sippy cups. The denial of such basic comfort items underscored the nature of the ambush—not simply a legal action, but a calculated show of force that stripped two toddlers of their mother’s presence and their most ordinary sources of security.

At the Lamoreaux Justice Center, Judge Julie Palafox convened a Hague Convention hearing. Hours later, the children were returned to their mother. Despite Naar’s recent convictions and a standing Australian no-contact order, Orange County granted him visitation rights never issued in Australia and forced Houghton into a five-day trial. Judge James L. Waltz went further—warning Houghton that unless she agreed to a post-return custody arrangement with Naar, he would approve the Hague petition. He then appointed DA Investigator Faria as the court’s “special master.”

What should have required nothing more than a straightforward hearing—and far less show of force—ended with Orange County attempting to rewrite custody arrangements across international lines.

These same tactics, and many of the same officials, have surfaced in multiple other Orange County family-court cases: Tawny Minna Grossman, Taran Nolan, and the six-part series on The Victims of Jessica St. Clair—as well as in my own family law case.

See: California Judges: The Good, the Bad and the –Orange County, Part One

California Judges: The Good, the Bad, and the –Orange County, Part Two

For readers seeking more coverage of systemic failures in Orange County’s family courts and beyond—including Retaliation in Hackensack: Dr. Bandy X. Lee, Bruce Fein Confront Family Court Over First Amendment —additional articles are linked at the end of this piece.

Legal Context

According to legal sources familiar with Hague Convention practice, the father’s five domestic-violence convictions and a standing Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (AVO) in Australia should have triggered the Convention’s Article 13(b) “grave risk” exception. That provision allows courts to refuse the return of children when exposure to abuse is clear.

Instead, Orange County officials staged a raid, traumatized two infants, and spent five days recasting the protective mother as not credible and unstable. The outcome: a convicted abuser with no prior parental access received his first custody and unsupervised overnight visitation rights through an Orange County courtroom.

Even in cases without proven abuse, experts note, courts typically introduce visitation gradually—never through an abrupt hand-off to a violent parent.

A Documented Record of Violence

According to Australian court records, Gareth Naar was convicted in December 2023 of five domestic-violence–related crimes, including multiple counts of common assault and stalking/intimidation with intent to cause fear. In New South Wales, such crimes are legally defined as serious domestic violence offences and carry maximum penalties of two to five years’ imprisonment.

Legal experts say the U.S. equivalents would likely fall under misdemeanor domestic battery for the assault counts and felony stalking or criminal threats for the intimidation charge—offenses that, in many states, also carry prison terms of two to five years.

Taken together, these convictions formally classify Naar as a domestic violence offender, a status that carries significant weight in both criminal sentencing and child custody proceedings under international law.

The Facts That Should Have Ended the Case

Court documents show that since August 2022, Gareth Naar was subject to a New South Wales Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) that barred contact with his wife. By April 2023, the order expanded to prohibit contact with the couple’s children as well, pending the outcome of his criminal trial.

During this period, Naar initiated proceedings in the Australian family court. Judges there declined to grant him visitation or custody rights, instead requiring a child assessment study before any orders could be considered. Houghton was directed to return with the children for those assessments. Rather than await the study, Naar filed a Hague Convention petition seeking the children’s return from the United States.

In December 2023, Naar was convicted of five domestic-violence offenses, and a final 12-month Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) was issued against him through November 30, 2024. Following the convictions, the Australian family court placed its custody proceedings on hold, deferring to the Hague petition filed in Orange County, California.

Meanwhile, in February 2024, Naar—South American by birth and later naturalized as an Australian citizen—applied to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Visa Waiver Program to enter the country. Records suggest he did not answer certain required questions accurately, particularly regarding his recent convictions.

By the time of the armed ambush on April 10, 2024, Houghton and her two daughters had been living with family in Orange County for just over a year.

Timeline: The Houghton–Naar Hague Case

2022 — Initial Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) issued in New South Wales protecting Joy Houghton; later modified to include the children.
April 2023 — AVO expanded to bar Gareth Naar from all contact with the children. Houghton travels to Newport Beach, California, with the girls to stay with family.
July 4, 2023 — Naar files a false missing-persons report in Australia. The Australian Consulate and NSW Police coordinate with Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) Sgt. Depweg to clear the report. Houghton checks in at NBPD in person, where authorities are notified of safety concerns raised by NSW officials and the consulate. Naar is allegedly later observed staked out at Houghton’s mother’s home in Australia. NBPD Depweg has numerous conversations with Houghton’s father never once mentioning a Hague Petition or U-Visas.
December 2023 — Naar convicted of five domestic-violence–related offenses (three counts of common assault, one breach of an AVO, one stalking/harassment). A final 12-month AVO is issued, effective through November 30, 2024.
February 6, 2024 — Naar applies to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Visa Waiver Program to gain entry into the United States, reportedly omitting or misrepresenting information on his application.
March 2024 —Social media searches show Houghton’s father is possibly experiencing online harassment by Naar. Costa Mesa Police is apprised of Naar’s recent convictions.
April 10, 2024 — Orange County DA’s Office and NBPD stage an ambush in a Costa Mesa parking lot. Houghton is served, and her two toddlers are seized. She is ordered to court the same day, where Judge Julie Palafox grants Naar unsupervised visitation—the first time ever the children are separated from their mom and placed with Naar since the domestic-violence charges and AVO were issued.
April 15, 2024 — Documents show Naar is reportedly seen peeking through windows of the residence where Houghton is staying. NBPD Detective Mike Fletcher allegedly dismisses the stalking incident.
April 23, 2024 — Judge Palafox amends her orders, changing father’s visitation to supervised only after learning from Houghton of Naar’s convictions and reports of child abuse. Palafox extends Houghton’s temporary restraining order CARPOS through CLETS—California’s statewide law-enforcement database for restraining orders. Also orders the temporary restraining orders to remain in effect while the hearing was continued.
May 7–10 & 14, 2024 — Five-day evidentiary hearing held in Orange County. Judge James L. Waltz swears in DA Investigator Joseph Faria as “special master.” Deputy DA Tammy Jacobs and Faria prosecute the case as if Houghton were the offender, while repeatedly excusing Naar’s behavior despite his recent convictions and the standing no-contact AVO. By this time, Houghton and her daughters had been living safely with family in Orange County for more than a year—facts that should have triggered Hague defenses, including the “well-settled” exception (Article 12) and grave-risk exception (Article 13(b)).
After return — Back in Australia, courts restore custody to Houghton and continue to restrict Naar to supervised-only, non-overnight contact.

How the Narrative Got Flipped

While Australian authorities had already convicted Gareth Naar and documented the risk he posed to his wife and children, Orange County prosecutors reframed the story. In court, and on the record Deputy District Attorney Tammy Jacobs echoed the father’s narrative, downplaying the convictions and Palafox’s the standing protective orders. She cast Joy Houghton as unstable, evasive, and lacking credibility—even though she had remained primarily at her declared address.

Australian records described the children as victims and at risk due to Naar’s conduct. In Orange County, those roles inverted: the documented victims became pawns, and the protective parent was recast as the accused. This inversion mirrors a wider pattern reported in other Lamoreaux Justice Center cases, including those of Tawny Minna Grossman, Taran Nolan, and the victims exposed in the Jessica St. Clair series—and echoed by multiple parents at recent protests outside the courthouse.

OCDA Jacobs Petition and Declarations, page 1 and 10 of 128pages. March 30, 2024

OCDA Faria’s Declaration, page 22 of 128 paged petition and declaration. March 30, 2024.

Putting the Victim and Protective Parent on Trial

According to whistleblowers and court documents reviewed, Jacobs omitted critical facts in the OCDA’s March 2024 petition for protective-custody warrants. Neither her declaration nor Investigator Joseph Faria’s mentioned Naar’s recent domestic-violence convictions or the standing no-contact order against him. Instead, Jacobs misstated that INTERPOL had issued a “yellow notice.” Records reviewed by this reporter show that claim was false. The Australian Federal Police confirmed no yellow notice was issued, since the children’s location in Orange County was known to both NSW Police and INTERPOL. They were never regarded as missing.

In trial, Jacobs minimized the seriousness of Naar’s convictions, even suggesting alternative explanations. She discounted disclosures of inappropriate touching—including allegations of “tea-bagging” infants—and instead targeted the mother’s credibility, insinuating mental instability. Faria, meanwhile, framed Houghton’s brief hotel stays for birthday celebrations as “evasive acts.”

Compounding the irregularities, Jacobs later told Judge Waltz that she did not believe Judge Palafox had ever ordered supervised visitation and claimed she had not been present at the earlier hearings. Yet the April 23, 2024 transcript tells a different story: in that hearing, Palafox explicitly directed Jacobs to Houghton’s declaration and cited it as the basis for revising her order—changing visitation to supervised-only after learning of Naar’s convictions and the child-abuse disclosures.

This contradiction makes Jacobs’ later statement difficult to reconcile with the record—and raises sharp questions about whether the DA’s office was selectively misstating prior rulings to advance the father’s position.

Outside the courtroom, systemic failures compounded the harm. Sgt. Depweg never informed Houghton that she could register her Australian order of protection in California or apply for a U-Visa.

Non-citizen may be entitled to a U-Visa if the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that the applicant has suffered physical or mental abuse as a result of having been a victim of a qualifying criminal activity.

Det. Fletcher declined to pursue 2024 reports of stalking and AVO violations. The convictions and protective order faded from view.

Judicial Role-Blurring and Due-Process Concerns

Judge James L. Waltz dismissed the Hague Convention’s Article 13(b) protections and ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in Golan v. Saada (2022), which requires courts to weigh grave-risk evidence without being forced to invent “ameliorative measures.” Instead of a swift ruling to protect the children, Waltz presided over a five-day hearing that pathologized and criminalized the mother.

Documents show Waltz appeared to prejudge the matter, warning Houghton that unless she agreed to post-return visitation orders in Australia, he would grant the Hague petition and place the children in Naar’s sole custody.

Judge James L. Waltz swears in DA Investigator Joe Faria as “Special Master”. May 14, 2024.

Then the court crossed another line. California Code of Civil Procedure §639 authorizes neutral referees—typically attorneys—for civil discovery disputes. Family Code §§3130–3135 and §3455 already define the DA’s role in abduction and Hague cases. Yet on his own motion, Waltz swore in DA Investigator Faria as a “special master” to oversee the child exchange and report directly to him. Waltz referred to Faria by first name, “Joe” multiple times, invited him to send updates to the judge’s personal email, and authorized “enforcement action” if exchanges exceeded 15 minutes. Even Jacobs admitted she had never seen such an appointment. The move blurred judicial neutrality with prosecutorial power and revealed an established personal relationship between the judge and investigator.

Judge Waltz’s Minute Order Giving DA Investigator Faria “Credentials”. May 14, 2024

If similar appointments surface in other cases involving Jacobs, Faria, and Waltz, the repetition could establish evidence of institutional bias or custom—grounds for judicial-misconduct review and potential Monell liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Trauma Inflicted, Truth Reasserted

On April 10, 2024, armed officers tore two babies from their mother and placed them in the sole care of a convicted abuser—for the first time in their lives. Naar flew them to Sydney and withheld them from their mother. Once back in Australia, however, the courts restored custody to Houghton. Fully aware of Naar’s criminal record, Australian judges limited him to supervised, non-overnight contact.

The System on Trial

Jacobs minimized fresh convictions and advanced the father’s narrative.
Faria planned surveillance and staged a tactical raid on very young toddlers.
Fletcher dismissed stalking complaints.
Palafox pressed the case forward despite notice of the convictions and protective order.
Waltz discounted grave-risk evidence, issued ultimatums, prejudged the outcome, and deputized a DA investigator as “special master.”
Waltz awarded sole custody to the father.

Sources report Waltz later moved to seal all five days of the hearing and transcripts without a motion or notice. The register of actions and docket entries remain accessible. Notably, Judges Palafox and Kreber-Veripapa—who handled related proceedings—did not seal their hearings or transcripts.

Hague Convention Defenses Explained

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was designed to ensure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed across borders. But it also contains safeguards meant to prevent unsafe or unjust returns. Two defenses were central in the Houghton case:

1. Grave-Risk Exception (Article 13(b))

“The judicial or administrative authority is not bound to order the return of the child if it is established that… there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” — Hague Convention, Article 13(b)

Application here:
- Gareth Naar was convicted in December 2023 of five domestic-violence offenses.
- A standing AVO barred him from contact with Houghton and the children through November 2024.
- Australian child-protection findings had already identified risk.
Bottom line: These were not allegations—they were adjudicated safety findings. Under Article 13(b), the case should have stopped there.

2. Well-Settled Exception (Article 12)

“The judicial or administrative authority… is not bound to order the return of the child if it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.” — Hague Convention, Article 12

Application here:
- By April 2024, Houghton and her daughters had lived with family in Orange County for more than a year.
- The children were integrated into a stable home, family support, and daily routines—meeting the treaty’s definition of “well-settled.”

Why These Defenses Matter

The Hague Convention was meant to prevent parental abductions, not to override existing abuse findings or rip children from safe homes. When courts ignore grave-risk and well-settled exceptions, the treaty becomes weaponized against the very victims it was never meant to further endanger.

A Raid That Broke with Hague Practice

A Hague legal expert described the Costa Mesa raid as “highly irregular.” The typical Hague process involves notice, a prompt hearing, and carefully planned transitions—especially for infants and toddlers. Armed seizures are reserved for emergencies involving imminent flight or violence. No such evidence was presented before the salon ambush.

Could a U-Visa Have Protected Jocelynne?

The U-visa was created to protect victims of crimes—including domestic violence and stalking—who:

Suffered substantial physical or emotional harm.
Have information about the crime.
Are helpful to U.S. authorities, as confirmed by a law-enforcement certification.

On the facts, Jocelynne Houghton fit that profile. A U-visa could have:

Stabilized her legal status in the U.S. while she sought safety.
Provided work authorization and financial security, reducing her abuser’s leverage.
Signaled her cooperation to authorities, requiring trauma-informed handling.

The structural barrier lies in certification. A U-visa requires a signature from a U.S. law-enforcement agency, prosecutor, judge, or child-protection authority. If the OCDA or NBPD refused to sign—or cast her as the problem—that alone would block her from protection.

That gatekeeping power is striking given what NBPD already knew. When Naar filed a false missing-persons report in July 2023, the Australian Consulate facilitated Houghton’s in-person check-in to clear it. Despite that awareness, Orange County authorities escalated to an armed ambush and a five-day evidentiary hearing, treating her as a suspect rather than a victim.

“Courts are not categorically required to issue return orders when a grave risk of harm is established, nor are they compelled to devise ameliorative measures to facilitate return.” — Golan v. Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880 (2022)

Bottom line: This was not a paperwork mistake. It was a series of deliberate choices that criminalized a protective mother, handed two young toddlers to a freshly convicted abuser, and denied the safeguards U.S. law was designed to provide. A U-visa could have affirmed Houghton’s status as a victim of domestic violence and stalking. Instead, the OCDA, NBPD, and OCSC subjected her and her babies to state-sanctioned abuse and re-traumatization.

This ongoing series on the OC family court crisis and nationwide family court crisis aims to bring national attention to these systemic issues, advocating for immediate reform and accountability. The time for action is now. It is imperative that lawmakers, the media, and the public unite to demand justice and protection for all families involved.

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.

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 journalistreporting on criminal and family court corruption, judicial 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 from California and Arizona:

Malinda Sherwyn

Sep 28

On watch in the courts and as an advocate, I have been in Waltz's courtroom. He is a monster, makes the worst possible decisions, is openly hostile to innocent domestic violence victims and their sexually molested children. Waltz should be serving a very long prison sentence!

Expand full comment

nicole dodson

Sep 27

Exactly like my case! Except they locked me in the courtroom and kidnapped my child. Have him to a man with previous DV who never had custody JUST THE SAME!

1 more comment...

Julie M. Anderson-Holburn