Section 4: The Parties and General Allegations
Here, the petition identifies the petitioners and the respondent, Judge Carringer. It introduces the overarching patterns of alleged misconduct, including bias against mothers, disregard for domestic violence laws, and financial corruption.
Page 6 III. PARTIES
A. Petitioners
- California Protective Mothers of Solano County (“CPMSC”) This is an association of survivors of domestic violence and mothers who have children that have been harmed by Respondent Judge Carringer. Many names and case numbers have been omitted for their protections vis a vis a punitive jurist.
- CPMSC is bringing this petition on behalf of litigants and children harmed by Respondent.
- The following is a sampling of the more egregious cases that demonstrate bias: [Case names and numbers redacted]
B. Respondent Respondent Judge Carringer who is currently a Superior Court Judge in Solano County. She presides over family law matters and domestic violence restraining order requests. Petitioners assert she has acted in excess of her office. Further, she has acted in a biased manner clearly partial against female parents, survivors of domestic violence and children and in favor of the connected, abusive or corrupt parent. She has acted maliciously, corruptly, arbitrarily and in a manner that the common person would deem as oppressive and dangerous to the well-being of the involved children, the family unit and the role of the courts.
Page 7 IV. FACTS
A. In General These are cases that we are bringing forward that demonstrate a pattern of corruption by Judge Carringer that include bias, a fundamental indifference to the best interest of the child, arbitrary disdain for The Domestic Violence Prevention Act, (Family Code 3044), and a disregard for the health, safety and welfare of children. These are just the matters we are aware of and they amount to multiple judicial indiscretions that we believe she perpetrates under the color of law by using her office to shield her from the abuses she perpetuates.
1. Parental Rights Termination and Cash for Kids Judge Carringer routinely and arbitrarily puts litigants, namely mothers with no history of domestic violence or substance abuse, on supervised visitation with their children and awards 100% custody of the child (ren) to documented repeat abusers. Mothers (often with with little or no income) are then charged extreme fees, often in excess of $800 per month, to visit their children under the supervision of a paid third party: [names redacted] are a few examples).
Solano County Family Court received $300,000 from the Department of Justice through the Office for Violence Against Women based on a grant requested by the court in 2013, specifically to address issues of Domestic Violence in Solano County. Judge Carringer did not make the survivors of domestic violence aware of the resources available to them, in fact, she’s alleged to have further victimized them in her courtroom while knowing there were resources available for said litigants and the children. Neither Judge Carringer, nor Judge Garry Ichikawa has given an account of those funds or how those funds benefited litigants in their courtroom. When questions regarding those funds surfaced, Judge Garry Ichikawa unceremoniously retired leaving Judge Carringer, the acting Supervising Judge, to give an account of the funds.
Page 8 Both parties have been reported to the Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women for a potential misappropriation of funds.
2. Domestic Violence and Mothers When a Mother makes substantiated claims of domestic violence in Judge Carringer’s courtroom, her loss of legal and physical custody of the child(ren) is almost automatic. Father, conversely, is not required to offer proof of any claims against Mother in order to obtain sole legal and physical custody. Given that it is often the court making baseless claims against Mothers, the mothers are left with little or no recourse and the children are left unprotected in cases with substantiated physical and/or sexual abuse. While the standard of review in family law matters is “clear and convincing” evidence, See the US Supreme Court cases of Santosky v.Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982), Troxel v. Granville (1999), Judge Carringer almost always dismisses all evidence against Father and customarily threatens litigants who want to present evidence against the Father.
Judge Carringer has a well-established reputation for exhibiting extreme bias against mothers, specifically mothers and children who are victims of domestic violence and/or sexual abuse or assault. Her rulings against said litigants are harsh and swift. She has a reputation for insulting litigants, name calling and threatening litigants from the bench with a loss of all custody if they mention substantiated claims of abuse. Even in cases where there was an attempted murder and confessions in cases litigated in criminal court, litigants are discouraged from mentioning documented claims of domestic violence, or other criminal offenses or drug use in her courtroom. She brags that she has not been overturned on appeal. She knows, however, that making credibile findings against survivors of domestic violence, excluding evidence, entering tentative temporary orders, and lack of resources make a successful appeal virtually impossible.
Section 5: Specific Case Examples of Misconduct
This section details specific, albeit redacted, case examples to illustrate the patterns of misconduct alleged against Judge Carringer. It focuses on alleged violations of interstate custody laws (UCCJEA) and failures to protect children, citing relevant legal standards.
Page 9 B. Specific Instances
- In Q [redacted] 963, Mother had been living in Ohio for two years with her children based on a stipulated agreement and court order between Mother and Father. In brazen disregard for the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), during an unnoticed, ex parte hearing, Judge Carringer ordered that the children be returned to California and placed in the custody of their father, a documented, admitted, unrepentant, suicidal abuser because Mother had allegedly abducted the children. When Mother returned to California and presented Judge Carringer with court orders that proved the children had not been abducted, she dismissed the prior court order granting Mother custody and the right to move out of state, placed Mother on supervised visitation, and proceeded on a campaign of terrorizing Mother and treating her like a common criminal. Alleged falsification of documents by Judge Carringer and due process violations have been reported to the governing authorities for investigation and prosecution.
- In L [redacted] 870, Mother and child had been living Georgia for approximately five years prior to Father initiating proceedings in Solano County when Mother came to town for a short visit. Father had voluntarily absented himself from the child’s life when Mother was five (5) months pregnant. Judge Carringer again disregarded the UCCJEA and relentlessly attacked Mother, calling her on multiple occasions an abductor in open court, although the Solano County District Attorney’s office has said mother did not abduct the child. Although Father was a domestic violence perpetrator, who did not know his son, Mother was ordered to surrender the child to the presumed Father and placed on supervised visitation with her son. In open court, the five (5) year old pleaded with the bench at hand not to be sent to live with a relative stranger; Judge Carringer was ruthless in separating the child from the only parent he knew. Mother has not seen her son since September 2016. Although Father repeatedly
Page 10 withheld contact between mother and child in violation of Judge Carringer’s orders, the court never enforced its own orders. Mother has reported Judge Carringer to the appropriate authorities for violations of Law.
- In S [redacted] 359, a pediatrician reported Father to Child Protective Services based on concerns regarding child molestation. Judge Carringer dismissed the emergency protective order Mother had against Father and determined that Mother was also an abductor in this case. The court then gave Father sole legal and physical custody of the minor daughter and put Mother on a supervised visitation order. Because Father dismisses the supervisors and Mother cannot afford her legal fees she has not seen her daughter in six (6) months. Mother, who is disabled, has reported Judge Carringer to the appropriate authorities for violations of Law and violations of The Americans With Disabilities Act. Judge Carringer is obviously not familiar with this time honored child custody tenant “…to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy.” California Family Code ยง3020(b)
3. Due Process Standards The United States Supreme Court has directly held that: “The fundamental liberty interests of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child… A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures” Santosky v.Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982)
Page 11 According to the US Supreme Court, a change of custody hearing that effectively terminates a litigants parental rights to their children requires both “Fundamental fairness” and “[Due] Process” is required when termination of parental rights of any sort occur. “The minimum standard is a question of federal law which this Court may resolve. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a [hearing is held with a] constitutionally defective evidentiary standard.” Santosky v. Kramer, (supra)
The US Supreme Court notes that “Fundamental fairness” and “Due process” must be afforded to someone who has certain “fundamental rights and liberty interests” taken from them and this would undoubtedly include “a parents fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children” as denoted by the US Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville (1999, infra): “The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that ‘provides heightened protection against interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests, Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp.63-66.”
Section 6: The Formal Articles of Impeachment
This is the heart of the petition, where the general allegations are formalized into specific “Articles of Impeachment.” These articles serve as the charges that the petitioners are asking the Assembly to investigate and act upon.
Page 11 (cont.) V. ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Petitioners hereby make the following suggestions for Articles of Impeachment.
Article 1. Abuse of Discretion and of Due Process Count I. Decisions made by Judge Carringer to change custody based on any unnoticed ex parte hearings, especially in the face of violations of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction
Page 12 Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), go against fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and flies in the face of common sense except in the most extreme cases. “The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child… A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982)
Article II. Child Endangerment Judge Carringer has ruled in a manner that directly placed a child (or children) in the care, custody, and/or control of a domestic violence perpetrator.
Count 1 In A [redacted] 113, Father was a heroin addict who lived with his girlfriend in his truck in a county park. Judge Carringer awarded significant custody and visitation to Father. On an occasion when the police contacted Mother and told her to come get her daughter from the park, Judge Carringer threatened Mother with a total loss of custody if she interfered with Father’s custodial time. When Father was shot at multiple times, by an unknown assailant, Judge Carringer disregarded the potential danger to the child and continued Father’s visitation. When Mother complained about the dangers of Father’s admitted heroin addiction, Judge Carringer threatened Mother with a total loss of custody if she mentioned Father’s drug addiction in court again. The deprivation experienced while in the care of Father has left the child with an ongoing eating disorder.
Page 13 Count II In Mo [redacted] 197, Father had a long, documented history of domestic violence. The minor son was allegedly brutally beaten by Father. One particular beating left the son bloody, barely able to walk and battling depression. The son attempted suicide on multiple occasions and Father was ultimately stripped of all rights to son by a Southern California court. Evidence was presented to Judge Carringer of the extreme abuse, a CPS report was made, and the minor was available to testify, yet, Judge Carringer dismissed all credible evidence of abuse and ordered the son be returned to Father. The son continues to struggle with depression and drug addiction.
Article III. Failure to Uphold the Judicial Canons
Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.
Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.
Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
Canon 6. Compliance with the Code of Judicial Ethics.
a) Judge Carringer has had at least one confirmed conviction for Driving under the Influence (DUI) FCR220040.
b) Judge Carringer was the subject of a Temporary Restraining Order in her divorce Carringer v. Boutorwick FFL065477.
c) Judge Carringer was the subject of a no corporal punishment order in her divorce/custody proceedings Carringer v. Boutorwick FFL065477.
Page 14
d) Judge Carringer used her office and influence as a judge to collude with the clerk’s office and an assigned judge to claim an emergency and seal her own court files from public view.
e) Judge Carringer used her chamber, courtroom, staff and the local Solano County Sheriff’s Department to assist her peer, Judge Cynda Unger in evading the legal, peaceful service of documents at the courthouse and use Solano County Sheriffs to intimidate the three women there to execute the service.
f) Judge Carringer fails to recuse herself in cases where recusal is appropriate.
g) When the news media contacted Judge Carringer, she pretended to be someone else. She ultimately admitted that she was in fact Judge Carringer and referred the call to another department.
h) Judge Carringer has been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for law and procedure violations.
i) Judge Carringer has been reported to The Department of Justice for a potential misappropriation of funds received by the Office on Violence Against Women.
j) Judge Carringer is the subject of multiple successful attempts to disqualify her as a judge.
k) Judge Carringer is the subject of multiple complaints to the Commission on Judicial Performance.
l) She has brought the office of Solano County Family Law into disrepute and has been the subject of public protest at the courthouse and in the local press.
m) Judge Carringer is the subject of multiple reports to the Solano County District Attorney’s office.
n) Judge Carringer is the subject of multiple complaints to the Solano County Presiding Judge.
Page 15
o) Judge Carringer has been accused of falsifying evidence, destroying evidence, obstruction of justice, and altering court documents.
p) Judge Carringer has been the subject of a Notice of Recall and is set to be the subject of another Notice of Recall within the next six months.
q) Petitioner also raises the notion that these patterns and practices that Judge Carringer has engaged in, shocks the conscience. Judge Carringer is not ashamed to engage in this behavior. The U.S. Supreme Court established the “shock-the-conscience test” in Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952). Based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition against states depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” the test prohibits conduct by state agents that falls outside the standards of civilized decency. These actions routinely happen in Judge Carringer’s courtroom.