Sacramento County Family Court Judge Peter McBrien Charged with Felony Criminal Conduct
Family Court Controversy Documents
Family court Judge Peter McBrien 2000 felony charging document with attached D.A. investigator report. Summons in lieu of arrest warrant charging Peter James McBrien with the commission of a violation of Penal Code section 594, a felony. With the five-page investigation report of Sacramento County District Attorney's Office Criminal Investigator Craig W. Tourte detailing Judge McBrien's responsibility for the destruction of public owned trees valued at more than $20,000 in the Ancil Hoffman Park Effie Yeaw Nature Center in Carmichael, California. Judge McBrien had the trees destroyed to improve the view from his home, according to the investigators report.
The case was resolved when McBrien pleaded no contest to a reduced, misdemeanor charge. Click here for the full story. Click here for local coverage of Judge McBrien at Sacramento Family Court News. Hon. Peter J. McBrien, is a Sacramento County Superior Court, family court judge. California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye was a Sacramento Superior Court Judge from 1997-2005 and presided over the first court in Sacramento dedicated solely to domestic violence issues, working closely with Judge McBrien.
Court Earns FCAC Poster Child of the Month Award
Family Court Presiding Judge Matthew J. Gary recited a laundry list of family court services cuts in an exclusive, February 2012 presentation to attorneys from the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section.
Gary has yet to provide the same statistics and data to the general public, including the 75 percent of family court users who don't have a lawyer. The March, 2012 issue of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section newsletter, Family Law Counselor, reported what the presiding judge revealed to the for-profit attorneys who practice in family court:
- Family Court Services (FCS) is down two mediators and has no ability to replace them.
- Public counter wait times routinely exceed five hours.
- Processing of drop box legal documents may be delayed for days or weeks due to lack of staff resources.
- Court phones are shut off at noon for lack of staff to field calls.
- The branch law library was closed.
- The Computer Room at the Self-Help Center was closed.
- The Self-Help Center itself is now serving 10,000 fewer litigants than in years past due to the lack of resources.
- The court no longer pulls retention or related files for hearings because of the lack of staff in the court's records unit. This means that the court routinely does not have the entire file for review at a hearing.
In addressing the 75 percent of family court litigants who cannot afford legal representation, Judge Gary provided the following abridged version of his speech, which is posted throughout the public areas of the courthouse:
For the full article, click Read more >> below...
At this link, Tulare County Family Court provides the following services for families and children:
- Child custody recommending counseling: It is mandated in Family Code section 3160 that parents be referred to mediation if they do not have a parenting plan for their child or children at the time of their court hearing. If you are referred to Family Court Services at the hearing and do not reach an agreement, the child custody recommending counselor will provide information and recommendations to the court in writing before your court hearing takes place.
- Child custody mediation: this is a confidential process in which the parents are assisted in developing a plan of custody and visitation, but if there is no agreement, the mediator does not provide information to the court. Appointments for mediation are available in the afternoon in Family Court Services.
- Juvenile dependency mediation: The juvenile court may refer cases to mediation for custody and visitation exit orders as well as discussion of of other issues as ordered. The mediator will send any agreements to the court or will let the court know if no agreement is made.
- Limited investigation in child custody cases may be conducted when ordered by the court, as provided in Family Code section 3112. There may be a cost assessed for this investigation.
- Pre-marital interviews for juveniles who petition for a marriage license, per Family Code sections 302 and 304.
- Investigation of Guardianship and Conservatorship petitions pursuant to Probate Code sections 1513 and 1826.
- Stepparent adoption investigations on requests for adoption, pursuant to Family Code section 9001. Click here for local forms and instructions for filing in Tulare County.
The Judicial Council of California provides reports, infomation and other data about self-represented litigants in California. This link provides the following list:
Divorce Attorney D. Thomas Woodruff and Firm Woodruff, O'Hair & Posner Accused of Over One Million Dollar Loss In Legal Malpractice Lawsuit
A prominent Sacramento family law firm is being sued for more than $1 million in damages stemming from a botched Sacramento Family Law Court divorce case. Plaintiff Wei-Jen Luan filed the case in 2004 alleging that divorce attorney Tom Woodruff and his firm Woodruff, O'Hair and Posner Inc., mishandled the sale of real estate held in a family trust during her divorce proceedings.
According to a 2005 survey [pdf] of the public, the strongest predictor by far of whether members of the public approve or have confidence in the courts was:
Having a sense that court decisions are made through processes that are fair.
Between November 2004 and February 2005, over 2,400 California adults were surveyed regarding their:
- Knowledge about the courts and the sources of that knowledge
- Perceived and experienced barriers to court access
- Experiences as jurors, litigants, or consumers of court information
- Expectations for what the courts should be doing
- Sense of the accessibility, fairness and efficiency of the courts
The study was commissioned by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, and the results were published [pdf] in September 2005. We'll cover more of the study results in future posts.
State Auditor Authority Over Judicial Branch Expanded by New Legislation
A bill signed into law yesterday will require the Judicial Branch to comply with the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA). The Judicial Branch will now be required to post information about the CWPA in any place where information for employees is posted. he law, passed at the request of California State Auditor Elaine Howle, also revises the statutory definition of "improper governmental activity" to include violations of California Rules of Court.
