Tag: California courts
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
When Family Court Fails: What Las Vegas’ “Judging the Judges” Survey Misses — And Why California Should Worry
A new survey of Clark County Family Court judges reveals alarming error rates, low retention scores, and rising secrecy—issues California’s own courts must not ignore.
-
Are Protective Orders in California Criminal Cases Becoming Too Broad?
California’s use of protective orders in criminal cases has expanded, raising concerns about transparency and due process. Blanket orders restricting access to evidence, influenced by resource pressures, can hinder defendants’ rights. Critics call for clearer regulations, increased funding for evidence management, and greater consistency across counties to protect both victims and defendants.
California Bay News 