Here’s an update! The Court Corrected the Record, State Bar is now involved.

We’re making progress, and your support keeps us moving forward!

Visibility upon our case through several forums has changed the trajectory!

Again thank you for signing this petition and thank you to CFLNT for the extended visibility upon a legal system that is unreliable at best, harmful at worst. 

Here’s what’s happened so far:

At the July 10 hearing, the court addressed serious concerns involving pressure placed on my minor child, domestic violence, visitation, therapy, and the conduct of Minor’s Counsel.

But when the written orders appeared, major parts of that hearing had vanished from the record.

The findings about excessive pressure on the child were missing. The discussion of domestic violence was missing. The hearing concerning Minor’s Counsel’s conduct was missing. The no-coercion language, the graduation admonishment, the visitation clarification, and the requirement that any future relief be brought through a new request were also omitted.

On July 13th, I filed a formal notice asking the court to preserve the true record and submitted a corrected Order.

The court (the judge) then took two separate actions.

First, Judge Bird signed the corrected order I submitted, I was shocked. Now the facts are in the order and on the record. Later that same day, the court separately rejected my larger preservation filing.

That distinction matters. The court did not simply approve everything I submitted. It reviewed the materials, rejected the broader filing, and signed the specific order that restored the missing record.  This was a big win, the court corrected the record.  That has never happened.  

My larger filing, showed a pattern of this occurring in his courtroom, and that was rejected, but Judge Bird did amend the order to reflect what happened in 2 hearings on July 10, 2026:  The signed order now states that too much pressure had been placed on the minor child, that the court takes domestic violence seriously, that there shall be no physical coercion, that visitation remained one day per week, that Minor’s Counsel’s conduct had been addressed at a separate hearing, and that the father must file a new request for any future relief.

Everyone was angry, except myself and my son:  Minors Counsel, the Father and the Therapist too. 

Instead of accepting the court’s signed order, Minor’s Counsel was angry, she sent several emails questioning it, and then encouraged the other parent to challenge it.  She should have taken her issue directly to the judge, there is a process, but instead, she incited the father to request transcripts and question the order. 

This conduct is exactly why I asked the Court to review her role.  She incites conflict, and drama, that is outside the best interest of the child.   Ms Bennett is encouraging one party to question a signed court order, has provided steps to challenge it, because it also has her review case on it.  That's suspicious. 

These "court officers" are supposed to uphold law, and function in the best interest of the family or the children, yet in this instance, instead of upholding a new signed order by the judge, which placed safety protections for her client, the minor child, Ms Bennett, chose to  incite the person who has commited DV, to question the order, in this instance it clearly benefits her, not only would it take her hearing off the record again, it would create more billable hours for her. 

A state bar complaint has been filed against Ms. Bennett.  The State Bar of California will now review her conduct and decide on whether to open a full investigation.  More to follow. 

The father has filed an objection with Judge Bird, at the behest of Ms Bennetts theory, asking that the signed order be replaced with one prepared by Minor’s Counsel, which expressly removes all safety provisions for our son, adds again therapy 6x/mo and expressly tells the Judge, "hey you were not supposed to sign that one, you are supposed to sign this one, the one that omits all the facts and safety provisions and keeps Ms Bennett in charge." 

Yes, it actually states that.  :)

A copy will be provided to the State Bar Association, showing the alleged collusion between Ms. Bennett and the person who committed the DV. Its stacks on stacks of evidence, but my experience with the legal system is that when it implicates one of their court officers, they look away. 

I have attended several hearings as a Court Watcher now, and see this as a standing operative mode. 

The order being challenged is the order that records judicial scrutiny of Minor’s Counsel own conduct. This is not simply a disagreement over paperwork. It reveals a recurring problem inside the Los Angeles County family court system: hearings occur, protective findings disappear from written orders, the affected parent is forced to fight to correct the record, and the same court-appointed professionals whose conduct is questioned are then allowed to influence whether that record remains intact.

The public should understand what this means:

->After I showed the court that the written order had left out major parts of the July 10 hearing, the judge reviewed my filing and actually signed a corrected order restoring those findings (in the past, he has ignored it, I believe he did not ignore it this time, because we are slowly exposing the improper conduct);

->Minor’s Counsel then questioned that order and encouraged the father to challenge it, even though that would eliminate safety protections for the child, I believe her motivation is that it documents concerns about her own conduct.

This is crazy, I would not believe it if I was not living it. 

A court record is supposed to document what actually happened. It should not depend on which lawyer prepares the order, whose conduct is being protected, or whether a parent has the resources and endurance to force the truth back onto the docket.

Now the same people whose conduct is reflected in that order are attempting to weaken or replace it.

That is why this petition remains necessary.

This case is not only about one family. It is about a system in which court-appointed professionals can exercise enormous power over children and parents while operating with inadequate transparency, weak oversight, and little meaningful accountability.

The State Bar has also been formally notified of Minor’s Counsel conduct, and the complaint has been assigned for intake review.  I will update you on those findings, while, I have experienced that court officers do not hold each other accountable,   I will continue documenting every filing, every contradiction, and every attempt to erase the record. Because moms like me have incurred tremendous damage due to systemic failures just like this. 

Accountability is not optional, not even for Court Officers.

The therapist was unhappy too, the new signed order clarifies the  maximum of therapy sessions to be 2/mo for our son.  She has sent several emails stating it needs to be 6/mo per her recommendations, I have asked for clinical recommendations, she had none, because thats not clinically indicated.  Then she cited a court order, and I pointed her to the new one. 

I believe she is unhappy because her billable hours were just reduced by 75%, however not at all did she consider the impact upon my son.  He doesn't need therapy 6x/mo, esp given that he has no clinical diagnosis to justify that.    Thats Dr Carol Seixas in San Pedro.  

Court orders are being used to feed professional gains while the victims in those cases, are not protected, or considered. That stops now in our case. Thank you for signing this Petition. It has helped me stop the crashing train of legal misuse in a DV case.