The Victims of Jessica St. Clair, MFT – Part Three

Parents and Children Share Their Trauma —Victims Speak Out and Experts Ignored

May 21, 2025

From left, Stacey D. White Kinney, Sue Tonkins, and Jessica St. Clair. Photo by Julie M. Anderson-Holburn.

Originally published on NewsBreak, November 2024. Updated.

In this third installment of our ongoing investigation into Jessica St. Clair, MFT, and the Orange County family court system, we examine the harrowing case of Parent F and Child F—a deeply disturbing example of systemic dysfunction. Their story reflects a broader pattern: miseducation, false credentials, defamation, manipulation, and repeated institutional failures within a court system that was supposed to protect them.

Rather than addressing abuse or prioritizing child safety, St. Clair—alongside collaborators such as licensed family therapist Stacey White Kinney and select Orange County judges—prolonged legal proceedings, imposed crushing financial burdens, and relied on hearsay over evidence. Time and again, court-appointed professionals with inferior credentials were favored over licensed experts. The result? Irreparable harm, as children were forcibly separated from safe, loving parents and placed with known abusers under the guise of “reunification.”

Readers are encouraged to review Part One and Part Two before continuing.

In April, St. Clair abruptly withdrew from all of her family law cases, (see article Orange County’s First Reunification Therapist Removes Herself From All Family Court Cases). Shortly after, reports surfaced that St. Clair misled the courts by falsely claiming she held—or was about to obtain—a doctorate, despite never earning a Ph.D. (see article Former Orange County Reunification Therapist Mislead Courts About Credentials). Investigations now link St. Clair to a broader network of mental health professionals and minors’ counsels who have consistently worked to reunify children with abusive parents—while unjustly cutting off contact with the very parents who tried to protect them.

These controversial tactics, including forced separations and reunification therapy, were showcased during a webinar hosted by the Orange County Bar Association. (see article: “OC Bar Association says ‘I just want to protect my children’ means ‘I just want to screw my ex’”).

The session featured prominent family court figures, including Nicole Schmidt, CFLS (Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP), Kristen Przeklasa, Esq. (OC Child & Family Formation Law Group, LLP), Dr. Linda Grossman (The Center for Positive Solutions), Dr. Sue Tonkins (Creative Custody Solutions), and Stacey White Kinney, MS, LMFT. None responded to requests for comment.

Below is the introductory video that was previously available on the Reunification Specialty Team website, run by St. Clair, Tonkins, and Stark:

The following allegations come from parents and children who spoke anonymously—out of fear and due to their ongoing involvement in the OC family court system, accuse this group of dismissing abuse claims, labeling protective parents as mentally unstable, and separating them from their children while the courts turned a blind eye.

As covered in part two, we concluded with Parent E’s testimony.

Dismissed Abuse Claims, Long Delays, and False Allegations Against Parent F

Parent F and the other parent entered family court in 2016. The court granted Parent F primary physical custody of Child F and ordered monitored visitation for the other parent. But everything changed after the case moved to Orange County in 2018.

Despite documented evidence of domestic violence and child abuse by the other parent, professionals like Kinney and Grossman began discrediting Parent F. Grossman conducted a custody evaluation in 2018, recommending cognitive behavioral therapy for Parent F and appointing Kinney as a special master to monitor the situation. From 2018 to 2022, Kinney and Grossman echoed the other parent’s baseless claims that Parent F was mentally unstable, without any supporting evidence. These accusations not only influenced the courtroom but also infiltrated Child F’s school and community.

Court records show Kinney was made aware of concerns about sexual, physical, and emotional abuse but dismissed them. When Parent F raised safety concerns from 2019 to 2021, Kinney refused to act, repeatedly stating she couldn’t limit either parent's custody. Kinney wrote:

“I cannot make recommendations that limit either parent’s custody. I cannot change custody nor recommend denying vacation time.”

In follow-up court hearings Parent F highlighted troubling inconsistencies in testimony from court-appointed therapist Mary Repp who was recommended by Kinney in 2020. Despite inaccuracies in Repp’s testimony, Repp’s testimony was allowed to stand without cross-examination, playing another significant role in the court’s decision to leave Child F with the other parent.

Documents obtained show that starting in 2018, medical professionals expressed concern about possible abuse, saying, “I’m concerned about possible abuse given the patient’s stated complaint.” Despite medical professionals expressing concerns about possible abuse, the court continued to rely on Kinney’s assessment, ignoring key reports.

Child F had also disclosed to law enforcement and medical professionals being hit, touched inappropriately by the other parent, and that the other parent threatened to kill them. Kinney ignored all of this and continued to claim Parent F was mentally unstable. Despite these alarming disclosures, the court, influenced by professionals like Kinney, dismissed the warnings, further eroding Parent F’s credibility and standing.

By May 2021, Kinney reversed her position, recommending supervised visitation for Parent F, suggesting Parent F needed a psychological assessment.

Kinney wrote to the parties and the court:

“[Parent F], your custodial time is now limited, without the necessity of a court order. I recommend supervised visitation (through FACES or another professional monitor approved by the case manager) until you are able to engage in a full psychological assessment by a forensic psychiatrist to evaluate your need for treatment and medication to assist you in managing your current state. I am concerned you have escalated your allegations from sexual abuse to homicidal intent, and I am concerned about how this affects—or will affect—your [Child F].”

A few months later, in August, Stacey Kinney co-authored and co-presented a webinar with Dr. Grossman to Orange County family court professionals. During the presentation, the Orange County Bar Association displayed a slide stating: “I just want to protect my children” means “I just want to screw my ex.”

From May 2021 to December 2022, Parent F was placed on monitored visitation at Kinney’s recommendation, restricted just 10 hours per week.

The financial toll of supervised visitation—up to $3,000 a month—became unsustainable. Parent F lost their home and sold all their possessions just to maintain contact with their child.

“I couldn’t stop seeing my child,” Parent F recalled. “I sold everything of value just to be with [Child F].”

Independent Expert Assessments and Testimonies Ignored

Leading national expert on domestic violence since 1983—attorney, author, and speaker Barry Goldstein—wrote an assessment for the court and testified in the case in July 2021. His findings were ignored.

Goldstein wrote:

“In this case, proof of the father's domestic violence is overwhelming. Let me speak clearly and directly: there is zero possibility that the present arrangement is proper. Enormous harm is being done to [Child F] by virtue of being denied a normal relationship with [Child F’s] [Parent F].
There is urgency to correct this error and restore the relationship because the longer the harm continues, the harder it will be for the child to overcome. [Parent F] deserved support and compassion instead of attacks and retaliation.”

Goldstein wrote the article “California Courts Harm Kids by Ignoring the Science” in March 2022, referencing the case.

The court ordered Parent F to undergo psychological evaluations—yet another tactic commonly used to discredit protective parents. Despite documented reports of domestic violence by the other parent, professionals like St. Clair and Kinney shifted the focus to Parent F’s mental health. They required two separate evaluations in 2021 and 2022 by independent experts. Both experts concluded that while Parent F experienced anxiety and PTSD stemming from domestic violence, their concerns for Child F’s safety were legitimate and genuine.

In October 2021, Dr. Grajewski, Psy.D.—a licensed psychologist in the state of California with a Doctorate in Clinical and Forensic Psychology and a Level-1 Certification in Trauma—conducted the first evaluation. Dr. Grajewski, who has experience in both forensic and clinical settings, concluded that Parent F showed no “presence of clinical psychopathology.”

Dr. Grajewski went on to express concern that court professionals have stated there is a lack of evidence of abuse despite numerous reports to CPS by mandated reporters and statements made by the child.

Dr. Alan Abrams, M.D., J.D., FCLM specializes in Forensic Psychiatry, Psychiatry and Neurology has worked with persons involved in the criminal justice system for nearly 40 years, including serving as the Chief Psychiatrist at CMF, Vacaville. He started the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship program at St. Elizabeths Hospital and Georgetown University. He continues to evaluate people and cases in the criminal justice system, and teach at UCSD. In 2023, Dr. Abrams received the William T. Rossiter Award for a lifetime of achievement from the California Forensic Mental Health Association.

Dr. Abrams conducted the second of these evaluations which was provided to the court in June 2022. Dr. Abrams, with multiple qualifications in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, found no evidence to support the allegations made by The Other Parent, Kinney or court professionals. In his report, Dr. Abrams stated:

"I found absolutely no evidence that Parent F suffers from Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another. I found no evidence that Parent F suffers from any form of a psychotic disorder. They do not suffer from delusional thinking... I did not find any evi‐ dence to suggest that Parent F was con‐ sciously dishonest in their reports to various authorities, doctors, agencies, or the court about their fears and belief that Child F was being victimized, as they actually believed he was in danger."

Dr. Abrams explained that Parent F’s fears were rooted in their history of domestic violence with the other parent, which had led to PTSD.

Despite the findings of Goldstein, Dr. Grajewski, and Dr. Abrams, the court continued to uphold the narrative that Parent F was mentally unstable—relying heavily on the written recommendations of court-appointed and court-approved Stacey White Kinney, LMFT, as well as her 2021 testimony, in which she claimed Parent F was “delusional.” According to Psychology Today, Kinney graduated in 2024 with a Psy.D. from California Southern University.

In January 2022 (and reissued in May 2022), Judge McConville—newly appointed to the case—formally adopted Kinney’s recommendations, ordering a psychiatric evaluation and monitored visitation for Parent F, while awarding sole legal and physical custody to the other parent. The court order stated:

“The Court concurs with the recommendation of Ms. Kinney, and believes a psychiatric evaluation is necessary due to [Parent F’s] allegations. A number of investigations have been conducted already in this matter regarding [Parent F’s] allegations against [the other parent]. All of [Parent F’s] allegations were found not to be supported, and [Parent F’s] allegations are escalating. [Parent F’s] allegations have gone from domestic violence to sexual abuse of the minor and now homicidal ideations. As the allegations escalate, the Court is gravely concerned for the child.”

The court order continued:

“While the Court wants [Parent F] involved in this child's life, the Court is concerned that [Parent F’s] involvement may harm the child. The Court encourages [Parent F’s] involvement in this child's life because the Court does believe that it is in this child’s best interest to have the ability to spend time with both parents. However, the child is subjected to harm if one of the parents continues to make allegations that demonstrate the parent is not able to identify true danger to the child.
The Court orders [Parent F] to undergo a psychiatric evaluation for the purpose of determining the root cause of [Parent F’s] escalating behavior. The evaluation will assist the Court when considering granting additional time to [Parent F].
The Court is looking for the evaluation to determine the root issue that causes [Parent F] to make the allegations [Parent F] makes and to determine if there is a path by which the root cause can be remedied in a manner that is consistent with best medical practices, with the understanding that the objective is to have [Parent F] spend additional time with the minor child. The Court is looking for a roadmap of what the psychiatrist believes are necessary steps/actions and the length of time it would take to accomplish those steps/actions.
While [Parent F] is not required to participate in the psychiatric evaluation, if [Parent F] does not, then that will be considered at the review hearing.”

OC Social Services’ Long History of Failure

In August 2023 child abuse reports were made to Orange County’s child abuse hotline—yet more than 35% of those cases received no contact from social services, according to the OC Child Abuse Registry database.

The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) has a long history of mishandling child protection cases. This pattern has been spotlighted in multiple high-profile lawsuits and settlements, including incidents where the agency failed to report sexual abuse or falsified court records.

Related articles:

Jessica St. Clair: Delays That Led to Harm

In May 2023, Jessica St. Clair was appointed to conduct a pivotal custody evaluation—but she delayed the process for nine months, citing personal issues. During this time, Child F remained in the other parent’s care, enduring alleged abuse and untreated medical conditions. Despite multiple warnings from Parent F, St. Clair failed to report these concerns to Child Protective Services.

In 2024, Judge Claustro removed St. Clair from the case due to her pattern of delays and ordered her to refund Parent F. Despite repeated motions, Parent F faced prolonged continuances, escalating legal fees, and mounting sanctions.

Today, Parent F continues to have limited visitation with Child F, with no overnight visits since Kinney’s 2021 recommendations. Unfortunately, this scenario mirrors many contested custody cases involving domestic violence and child abuse in Orange County family courts.

Parent F paid for monitored visitation and covered the professional fees of Kinney, St. Clair, Goldstein, Dr. Grajewski, and Dr. Abrams. In 2020, the court imposed $20,000 in sanctions on Parent F and continued to require payment for therapy and legal representation. Although the court appointed a new 730 evaluator to replace St. Clair, the evaluation cannot proceed—Parent F has exhausted all financial resources.

(More to follow in Part Four.)

The time for action is now. Justice and protection for our children must not remain distant ideals—they must become lived realities.

This ongoing investigative series on the Orange County family court crisis seeks to bring national attention to systemic failures and advocate for urgent reform and accountability. Lawmakers, the media, and the public must come together to demand justice for families and protection for children.

Are you committed to protecting American children and restoring integrity to our legal system?

Contact your legislative representatives. Speak out. Reach out to media outlets. And vote.

Whistleblowers and victims of family court, CPS, probate court, or foster care corruption anywhere in the U.S.—please contact this reporter at juliea005@proton.me.

Together, we can ignite a national movement and create lasting change.

Julie M. Anderson-Holburn is a California-based investigative journalist reporting on 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.