Lawsuit Challenges Eric Swalwell’s Eligibility to Run for California Governor
A lawsuit challenges Rep. Eric Swalwell’s eligibility for California’s 2026 gubernatorial race, claiming he doesn’t meet the state’s five-year residency requirement. Filed by Joel Gilbert, it alleges Swalwell primarily resides in Washington, D.C. and questions his Candidate Intention Statement. The case raises broader concerns about candidate residency enforcement in California.
Idaho Lawmakers Move to Modernize Child Custody Laws After Years of Family Court Complaints
Idaho lawmakers are initiating significant reforms to the state’s outdated child custody and family court laws, responding to long-standing concerns about inefficiencies and negative impacts on children. A bipartisan task force is drafting legislation aimed at modernizing statutes, improving law enforcement involvement, and ensuring that children’s voices are heard in custody matters.
Colorado Bill Raises New Questions About Parental Rights and Family Court Authority
A new Colorado bill, SB26-018, aims to protect minors’ privacy regarding name changes and gender identity in family law. Supporters view it as a privacy measure, while critics argue it may undermine parental authority in custody decisions by favoring affirming parents. The bill has sparked national debate on family rights and state influence.
Oregon Lawmaker Revives Foster Youth Rights Bill After Gov. Kotek’s Veto
An Oregon lawmaker reintroduces legislation aiming to expand rights for foster children, previously vetoed by Governor Kotek due to cost and legal concerns. The bill seeks to enhance care standards, but critics argue existing system failures must be addressed first. The renewed push reflects ongoing public pressure for meaningful reform in Oregon’s foster care system.
California’s New Joint Divorce Law Signals a Shift Away From Family Court Warfare
California’s Senate Bill 1427, effective January 1, 2026, introduces a joint petition process for divorces, allowing couples who agree on key issues to file together amicably. This reform aims to reduce costs, expedite resolutions, and lessen emotional harm to children, potentially serving as a model for other states facing similar family court challenges.
Idaho’s Child Welfare Debate: Protection, Profit, and the Limits of State Power
A heated debate in Idaho raises questions about the effectiveness of child welfare, with critics claiming it prioritizes family separation over protection. The child welfare system is influenced by federal funding that rewards removals. Recent legal challenges and high-profile cases like Baby Cyrus emphasize tensions between parental rights and state intervention, revealing systemic flaws.
California Family Courts Under Scrutiny: Minors’ Counsel, Taxpayer Costs, and a System Resisting Oversight
An investigative report by The Davis Vanguard highlights issues in California family courts regarding the appointment of minors’ counsel and parenting coordinators, raising concerns about costs, conflicts of interest, and oversight. Critics argue for reform to enhance transparency and accountability, emphasizing that unchecked systems undermine the original intent to protect children’s best interests.
Utah Mother Allegedly Flees to Europe With Four Children, Igniting Renewed Fears Over Parental Abduction and System Failures
A Utah parental abduction case involves Elleshia Anne Seymour, who allegedly took her four children overseas, violating custody agreements. As they remain missing, the case highlights failures in family court enforcement and passport systems. Advocates stress the importance of safeguarding parental rights and preventing unlawful international travel in custody disputes.
California Did This First: What Colorado’s New Custody Ruling Reveals About a Longstanding Legal Trend
The Colorado Court of Appeals recently allowed prosecutors to charge a felony per child for violating custody orders, aligning with California’s long-established legal framework. While this approach emphasizes individual harm to each child, it raises concerns over excessive prosecutorial power during family crises, prompting questions about state intervention in vulnerable situations.
Colorado Appeals Court: One Custody Order, Multiple Felonies—Per Child
A Colorado Court of Appeals ruling allows prosecutors to charge separate felonies for each child affected by a custody violation, even under one order. This decision increases legal repercussions for parents, offering prosecutors greater leverage in plea negotiations. Concerns arise regarding potential overreach and the impact on families during custody disputes.
California Judge Strikes Down Statewide ‘Parental Exclusion’ Policies in Landmark Ruling
U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled California’s “parental exclusion” policies unconstitutional, blocking state mandates that required schools to conceal children’s gender identity changes from parents. The decision reinforces parental authority in education, impacting 300,000 teachers and over six million students while emphasizing the importance of parental involvement in children’s well-being.
When Courts Release the Manual but Not the Map
The article discusses the implications of California Rule 10.500 for public access to court records, particularly in the case of People v. Smiel. It highlights how the Los Angeles Superior Court’s transparency efforts, while disclosing training materials, still restrict structural access. This raises questions about the necessary level of transparency in digital justice systems.
CARE Court’s Broken Promise: Why California Families Feel Let Down by Newsom’s Mental Health Reform
California’s CARE Court, launched in 2022 to aid those with severe mental illnesses, has become a source of frustration for families. With participation being voluntary, many individuals disengage from treatment, leading to homelessness and incarceration. Despite some successes, it fails to reach the most critical cases, prompting calls for stronger intervention.
When Allegations Outlive the Case
The article explores the complexities of unresolved criminal allegations within California’s court system, particularly in the context of the ongoing case against Giselle Smiel, who faces felony charges. It highlights the challenges of dismissals and protective orders that, while indicating institutional concern, lack definitive adjudicated findings, raising questions about fairness and transparency in legal processes.
LA District Attorney Records Show Investigators Authorized to Wear “POLICE” Uniforms — With No Training or Oversight on Public Confusion
Public records show Los Angeles County District Attorney investigators are authorized to wear uniforms labeled “POLICE,” even as the agency confirms it has no written training, audits, or oversight addressing whether such attire could mislead the public. The disclosures raise new questions about transparency, authority, and due process in sensitive child-related investigations.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – December 14, 2025
The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) has acknowledged that it lacks written policies governing criminal affidavits and the authority of District Attorney Investigators. This absence raises significant concerns about legal standards, due process, and accountability in law enforcement, affecting both the public and defense processes within the county.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE — December 14, 2025
On October 6, 2025, the Los Angeles Superior Court held a significant hearing in the case of People v. Giselle Farias Smiel without public access or proper notification. Advocates, including ADA support personnel, were excluded. This breach of transparency undermines First and Sixth Amendment rights, as well as ADA Title II protections, raising serious legal…
The Public Has a Right to Know Whether Government Agencies Followed the Law Before Taking Someone’s Freedom.
Los Angeles and San Diego officials are under scrutiny for withholding public records related to the prosecution of Giselle Smiel, raising concerns over transparency and due process. Taxpayer-funded agencies are stalling information requests, undermining public trust in the justice system by obscuring the facts surrounding an arrest that severely impacts a citizen’s freedom.
Idaho Lawmakers Move Toward Sweeping Child Custody Reform—With New Penalties for Violations
Idaho lawmakers are set to overhaul child custody laws, addressing years of concerns about inconsistent rulings and parental rights deprivations. The new proposals, driven by the Child Custody and Domestic Relations Task Force, include a presumption of 50/50 joint custody, stronger enforcement measures, and provisions for child safety, aiming for clearer justice in family courts.
Oregon Senator Sounds Alarm on Family Courts—Raising Questions Californians Should Not Ignore
Oregon is experiencing increasing scrutiny over family courts, spurred by Senator Suzanne Weber’s concerns about unchecked judicial power and limited transparency. Complaints have emerged from constituents highlighting systemic issues, echoing similar criticisms in California. The lack of accountability and federal funding influences demand nationwide reform, though responses remain sparse.
California Bay News 