The Victims of Jessica St. Clair, MFT - Part Five
Dr. Sue Tonkins’ Role in Child G’s Trauma and the Oversight Failures in California’s Family Court System
Originally Published on Newsbreak, December 13, 2024.
In this fifth installment of our investigative series on Jessica St. Clair, MFT, we examine her colleague, Dr. Sue Tonkins, who played a pivotal role in the case of Parent G and Child G. Tonkins, frequently collaborating with St. Clair and Dr. Stacey White-Kinney, held significant influence in Orange County’s family court system. Through firsthand accounts from Parent G and Child G, this report exposes how Tonkins’ actions undermined a protective parent, revealing systemic failures in the court’s reliance on a network of court-approved professionals.
In April 2024, St. Clair abruptly withdrew from all her family law cases (see “Orange County’s First Reunification Therapist Removes Herself from All Family Court Cases”). Investigations revealed she misled courts by falsely claiming to hold or be pursuing a doctorate, despite never earning a Ph.D. (see “Former Orange County Reunification Therapist Misled Courts About Credentials”). These revelations broadened the inquiry, linking St. Clair to a network of mental health professionals and minors’ counsel who repeatedly pushed to reunify children with abusive parents while isolating protective parents.
For context, readers should rreview Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four of this series. These installments detail St. Clair’s disputed credentials, her role in controversial custody cases, and the close-knit professional circle shaping judicial outcomes in Orange County family court. Together, they expose a pattern of misrepresentation, collusion, and unethical practices devastating families.
A Family Disrupted: Child G’s Story
After years of alleged drug addiction and troubling behaviors — including incidents where the other parent reportedly locked themselves in a room with Child G for hours — Parent G and the other parent divorced in 2019. Despite the separation, neglect and abuse concerns persisted, leading Parent G to gain primary custody of Child G in 2021. Their lives briefly stabilized. From 2021 to 2023, Child G and the other parent engaged in monitored visitations with more than four providers.
In May 2022, St. Clair joined the case as a therapeutic monitor, followed by Tonkins, a reunification/reintegration therapist, in 2023. Both were affiliated with the Reintegration Specialty Team, formerly the Reunification Specialty Team, which they co-managed. The group rebranded as the Reintegration Specialty Team and later as Creative Custody Solutions, erasing its original online presence. Critics argue this rebranding deliberately evades scrutiny and legal challenges tied to controversial reunification therapies, particularly in cases with credible abuse or domestic violence allegations.
By substituting “reunification” with “reintegration,” the group repackages criticized practices under a euphemistic label, continuing operations with less visibility. This tactic raises serious questions about compliance with Piqui’s Law in California, which bans court-ordered reunification therapies lacking scientific validity or isolating a child from a non-abusive parent while compelling contact with an abusive one. Enacted to protect children from coercive practices, Piqui’s Law reflects advocacy from groups like the California Protective Parents Association, which highlight risks in custody disputes. For visual context, see video where Tonkins uses Reintegration Therapy term (timestamp 1:51):
November 2023: Reintegration Therapy aka Reunification
Court documents reveal a November 2023 stipulation, signed January 16, 2024, that introduced a “step-up parenting plan” to facilitate reintegration therapy between Child G and the other parent. This plan granted Dr. Sue Tonkins significant authority to set therapy goals, dictate co-parenting terms, and implement unsupervised visitation. The stipulation explicitly stated:
“The term ‘reintegration therapy’ as used herein means ‘reunification therapy.’”
“The reintegration therapist shall set the goals, role, and collaboration parameters of the recommended individual and co-parenting therapy.”
“The court has determined that it is appropriate and safe for [Child G and the other parent] to commence reintegration therapy.”
“The reintegration therapist shall develop a step-up parenting plan for [the other parent] when and as appropriate, based on the progress of the treatment. Both parties shall comply with said step-up parenting plan.”
By equating reintegration with reunification therapy, this stipulation exposes the rebranding as a superficial attempt to sidestep scrutiny and Piqui’s Law, which prohibits coercive, unscientific therapies that endanger children by forcing contact with an abusive parent. Such practices demand rigorous scrutiny to ensure compliance with protections prioritizing children’s well-being.
April 2024: Launchings Begin
In April 2024, Tonkins initiated launchings as part of reintegration therapy. She stated:
“I commence launchings whereby I spend the first few minutes with the minor child, and then [other parent] spends two hours with [Child G] doing an activity discussed in therapy. At the end of the two hours, [Child G] will talk with me to discuss how the activity went. This will be virtual or live contact, depending on the time.”
However, these sessions consistently ended early due to the other parent’s upsetting behavior. By the fifth visit, Tonkins unilaterally extended visits to four hours and made them unmonitored. These visits often lasted only an hour before Child G, in tears, returned to Parent G. Parent G and Child G stated Tonkins failed to contact Child G before or after these visitations.
Tonkins acknowledged financial constraints but pressed forward, stating:
“If we do not move forward, [Child G] will continue to have high anxiety and grow more resistant to this process.”
The plan involved weekly sessions to increase Child G’s time with the other parent, provided individual trauma recovery therapy progressed. Tonkins suggested using St. Clair for launchings if needed.
May 2024: Pushing Boundaries
Records show that in May 2024, Tonkins demanded unmonitored visits, insisting the proposed stipulation include: “Neither party has any objections to unmonitored visits.” She also requested St. Clair’s removal, stating:
“Jessica St. Clair is no longer in practice.”
July 2024: Overstepping Authority
By July 2, 2024, Tonkins overstepped her therapeutic role, assuming judicial authority. She increased Child G’s time with the other parent, established unsupervised visits, split holidays, and dictated “rules of engagement” between parents. Tonkins also required Child G to discontinue sessions with their longtime therapist.
August 2024: Questionable Decisions and Abrupt Recusal
In August 2024, Tonkins admitted Child G’s lack of trauma therapy hindered reintegration progress. Documents show she stated: “It was my clinical recommendation and hope that this child would have received individual psychotherapy, specifically EMDR, at the commencement of our reintegration therapy. Unfortunately, this has not occurred.” Immediately after, Tonkins abruptly recused herself from the case.
The Child’s Voice
Quotes from Child G were obtained with Parent G’s consent. When I interviewed Child G, now a tween, they recounted their experiences with St. Clair and Tonkins:
“I saw Jessica about five times. She was off to me — she didn’t act like a therapist. Then I went to Sue Tonkins, who I saw for a long time. She said weird stuff, like, ‘Your [other parent] is trying [their] best, you need to be understanding. You need to put yourself in [their] shoes.’”
Child G’s discomfort escalated as Tonkins grew more aggressive:
“Sue told me that if I didn’t visit my [other parent], Parent G would go to jail, and it would be my fault. She said I couldn’t tell anyone, and it really freaked me out. It caused me a lot of stress, but I finally told someone.”
Child G described being forced into unmonitored visits despite expressing fear:
“Sue ignored me when I said I didn’t want to visit my [other parent] alone. She made me do it anyway and said Parent G would go to jail if I didn’t. My [other parent] was hungover sometimes and acted really weird. Sue called these sessions launchings and said she’d check in with me, but she never did.”
Child G added: “Sue threatened me and told me I couldn’t look into the past — what my [other parent] did to me — but could only look to the future. That scared me because [Parent G] was the only one always there for me.”
Before therapy, Child G recalled: “My [other parent] would lash out, be drunk a lot, and have extreme mood swings. I got scars from bed bug bites because the house was so dirty. I couldn’t even sleep in my own bed.”
Child G revealed Tonkins ordered them to stop seeing their favorite therapist in July 2024. Records confirm Tonkins directed those sessions to end, pushing Child G to see Dr. Stacey White-Kinney instead.
A Broken System
Child G’s story exposes the harm caused by professionals who overstep their roles and fail to prioritize children’s well-being. Despite acknowledging Child G’s trauma and the other parent’s past behavior, Tonkins pushed unmonitored visits without ensuring therapeutic support, causing further distress. This case reveals the lack of oversight over family court-appointed professionals, who wield unchecked power to make life-altering decisions for vulnerable children. As this series continues, the need for systemic reform grows ever more urgent.
(More to follow in Part Six.)
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.
Related coverage from California and Arizona:
San Diego trial begins in retired prosecutor's lawsuit against Orange County
Jury selection to begin in San Diego in Todd Spitzer retaliation lawsuit
OC Supervisors Quietly Settle Child Abuse Case for $28 Million
Orange County woman worries she may end up like Gabby Petito
Orange County's How to Manual for Racketeering in Child Custody
Orange County DA's Office Hostile to Women: Unprotected OC Women Suffer Under Spitzer's Retaliation
OC Bar Association says “I just want to protect my children” means “I just want to screw my ex”
Orange County Mother's Plea for Protection: Local Police and OCDA's office Fail to Act
Mother Sues The Irvine Company, Orange County DA and Family Court Retaliate
Orange County Court Ignores Abundant Evidence of Abuse, Gives Children to Father
A blood feud rocks O.C. law enforcement with claims of ‘dirty cop,’ ‘corrupt’ D.A.
Orange County’s First Reunification Therapist Removes Herself From All Family Court Cases
Former Orange County Reunification Therapist Mislead Courts About Credentials
The Victims of Jessica St. Clair, Parents and Children Share Their Trauma, Part Two
Whistleblowers Reveal Corruption in Orange County Family Courts and Beyond
CENSORED FOR SPEAKING OUT: OCDA Deleted Public Comments During Its Own Crime Victims Rights Ceremony
OC Court Delays for 10 Months—Then Demands $4,240 for One Public Record
Keshel threatens to investigate judge over pending family-court cases
04/14/2025 - Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders
EXCLUSIVE: The Paralegal Pretenders of Orange County — A Hidden Threat in Family Court
Orange County’s Justice Meltdown: Judge Carmen Luege’s Unlawful Orders and Due Process Violations
OC Man Charged with 5 Felony Counts of Molestation: Family Court and CPS Ignored Reports for Years
OCDA Ignores Good Cause Law, Family Court Violates Due Process in Tawny Minna Grossman Case
Judicial Misconduct in OC? Judge’s Threats Against Mother Over Media Coverage Become Reality
Weaponized Gag Orders: How an OC Judge Is Silencing a Quadriplegic Mother’s Fight for Justice
Orange County Judges Block Public and Media from Court Hearings
Update: “Tar’s Road to Recovery” Mom Bullied by OC Minors’ Counsel in Fight Over Special Needs Trust
Injustice in OC: mom of tar's road to recovery faces unjust & prolonged separation from her kids
OC Judge’s Orders Lead to Premature Birth: Baby Sahara Fights for Life
California Judges: The Good, the Bad, and the… San Joaquin County, Part Two
Welcome to Unveiled and Uncensored: Investigating Family Court Corruption
Links to other OC prominent cases and additional reading:
A blood feud rocks O.C. law enforcement with claims of ‘dirty cop,’ ‘corrupt’ D.A.
State of the Nation 2012 Report
OC Supervisors Settle Lawsuit Alleging Social Services Did Not Report Child Sex Abuse
U.S. SUPREME COURT RE‐ JECTS ORANGE COUNTY’S CHALLENGE TO $4.9 MILLION LAWSUIT
Fox 11 Reporter, Producer Mar‐ tin Burns Dies in Hiking Accident
OC Weekly: LAWMAKERS OK CHILD PROTECTIVE SER‐ VICES AUDIT REQUEST PARTLY SPARKED BY OC CASE: UPDATE
OC Weekly’s Coverage on Ruby Dillon’s Custody Battle
Filed 6/14/10 Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange CA G039045
Attorney Unveils Suit Alleging Cover-up of Disgusting Child Abuse by DA, County Agency
Voice of OC: Problems in OC Child Welfare System Get Statewide Scrutiny
Voice of OC: OC Child Protec‐ tion Agency Under Fire
Lexi Dillion Case: What Caused an Expert To Change His Mind?
Court Trafficking of Jonah Reef & Lexi Dillion gets national at‐ tention, exposes corruption
JUDGES REJECT ORANGE COUNTY’S CLAIM THAT SO‐ CIAL WORKERS DIDN’T KNOW LYING IN COURT WAS WRONG
Sue Tonkins created more strife than healing in my family. She knew how to muddy the truth, by acting like she was listening to you but in reality she turns your concerns against you and your children. She is mostly about the parent who can pay her, not about what is in the best interest of the children. She was admonished by by our last Judge for overstepping her role, and that she seemed to have a “pretty good gig” for years in our case. She had Jessica St Claire as her reunification teammate. They were Creative Custody solutions and reunification therapist. The amount of money wasted on these people, the amount of money that could’ve been put into our children’s college funds instead is ridiculous. But they like the pay day, and they liked to keep this turmoil going. They aren’t about resolution or reunification. BEWARE!
Thank you Julie for covering, keep up strong work