Front Page  »  

Do San Luis Obispo County family court judges know the law?

August 21, 2024

Judge Matt Guerrero

By KAREN VELIE

In the San Luis Obispo County Courthouse, where families’ futures hang in the balance, several judges entrusted with the power to shape the lives of parents and children either did not fully understand or did not feel the need to properly apply laws they are meant to uphold.

An appellate court recently found that Judge Matthew Guerrero applied the wrong legal standard in a family law case, prompting the higher court to question if he correctly understood and properly applied the law.

The case involves a father, identified only as Jim to protect his privacy, who was seeking changes in visitation with his child born in 2018. The mother, identified as Val, has full custody.

In June 2021, Judge Ginger Garrett provided Jim a pathway to visitation that included entering a drug treatment program and providing random drug testing results along with psychological records. The judge also suggested Jim approach county mental health with a copy of the June 2021 order to obtain a psychiatric examination in order to show changed circumstances – an inaccurate legal standard.

Jim, a full-time student at UC Berkeley, filed a request to modify Judge Garrett’s visitation order in May 2022, after which Judge Guerrero was assigned the case.

Jim represented himself in court proceedings. He informed the court he had completed the pathway set out by Judge Garrett. He attended a 90-day inpatient treatment program, during which he was randomly drug tested three to four times a week, breathalyzed daily, and attended daily AA meetings.

Val’s attorney Christopher Duenow argued that Jim needed to show “changed circumstances,” at a Sept. 2022 hearing. Duenow, however, applied the wrong legal standard for visitation modification. Legal professionals note that this error is akin to a veteran driver confusing the brake pedal with the gas pedal.

During the same hearing, Judge Guerrero complimented Jim on his recovery efforts and asked him to bring evidence of his treatment program to the next hearing.

Jim filed evidence of negative drug tests, psychological records from Ventura Recovery Center, and documentation of enrollment with Ventura County Behavioral Health, with the court in early Dec. 2022.

At a review hearing on Dec. 15, 2022, Judge Guerrero stated he had “not found a significant change in circumstances to warrant a custody change.”

Unable to afford legal counsel, Jim wrote his own appeal. He argued that Judge Guerrero abused his discretion, erred when he refused to allow expert testimony and evidence of his recovery, and applied the wrong standard for modification of visitation.

The appellate court ruled in favor of Jim. It determined Jim had “substantially complied” with Judge Guerrero’s directives to provide evidence of his recovery, according to the July 17 California’s Second District Court of Appeal ruling.

In addition, the appellate court determined Judge Guerrero, Judge Garrett and attorney Duenow had all applied the wrong standard. The legal standard for modification of visitation is the best interest of the child.

“The court applied the wrong standard,” according to the appellate court. “At the hearing, [Guerrero] stated: ‘I have not found a significant change in circumstances to warrant a custody change.’ However, the father was not seeking a custody change. He requested modification of the visitation order to allow supervised and Zoom visitation.”

The appellate judges added, “In light of the court’s express invocation of the incorrect standard, we are unable to presume it knew and properly applied the law. We cannot conclude the error was harmless.”

As a result of the appeal, Jim’s request for modification of visitation has been remanded back to San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, to be considered under the best interest of the child standard.

This case highlights the importance of applying the correct legal standards in custody and visitation cases. It also underscores the challenges faced by individuals who represent themselves in court proceedings, particularly when legal professionals misapply fundamental principles of family law.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, but it requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


20 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Family Courts in this State need to stop making Attorneys and Judges the priority, and focus on the kids involved. Attorneys are motivated by money, so they will prolong the suffering of the family to keep the case going as long as possible. Judges often favor certain attorneys over others, and have very little oversight themselves. The entire system is a farce


34

Do the courts or any other governing body do conflict checks for staff in family services departments at the county to ensure no conflicts of interests with local developers, cannabis operators and attorneys?


Was Don Ernst involved with the appointment of judges or Government counsel identified by name or position in the federal indictment filings?


A very alarming reporting. humans begin and end with family. To even consider the possibility that any system could be in place as a tool that can gaslight, manipulate, separate parent from child and destroy families for gain or otherwise is beyond reproach.


13

Another area of government that is in desperate need of term limits.


27

As a mother in a situation very similar to the one described in this article, I felt compelled to share my perspective. While I rarely comment online, this topic resonates deeply with me.


The impact on children in these circumstances is particularly heartbreaking. It’s difficult to fully grasp how challenging it must be for a child to have their time with a parent reduced. Sadly, it seems that the parent willing to manipulate the situation and with the most resources tends to gain the advantage, depriving the child of access to the stable parent who is unwilling to engage in such manipulation.


My heart goes out to all those navigating such difficult situations, especially the children caught in the middle.


40

This merely confirms my already very low opinion of the entire law enforcement community. Up until now I thought the primary offenders were cops, who collectively have no clue about the law. I see now that judges and attorneys are in the same gang. No regular person can afford the time and money necessary to acquire justice. Only those who have a lot of time and money can afford to buy justice.

 

I choose to characterize the situation describe in this article as follows. Co-conspirators Matt and Chris “allegedly” colluded to commit a crime against Jim. Jim, a pro se victim had to spend his own time and money to get restitution in the form of another hearing in superior court, and I think he was lucky to get that. However, he got no justice. Nothing will happen to Matt and Chris. He will probably have to argue his case again before the same “alleged” conspirator to try to get justice from one who has already made up his mind.

 

Essentially what the article says using more appropriate words.

 

BTW I once was a plaintiff in a small claims case which I believe was before Judge Crandall. He treated my quite fairly. I agree with legal1931 that he is likely “the best we have on the bench”.


16

Karen, thank you for shining light on this dad trying to father his child, yet facing such bogus from the court. I’m a single dad in a very similar situation, and this gives me hope truly. How many people who couldn’t afford a lawyer and didn’t appeal still don’t have their children due to corrupt courts and horrible parents alienating their children?


27

The dad has a history of drug use. Unsupervised visitation still may not be in the best interest of the child. The mother obviously doesn’t think so.


-6

…based on no factual information.


0

Except being ordered into rehab and random drug testing. Did you read the article?


-1

The damage to children and families with bad decisions on child custody is huge and lifelong. And the attorneys know, and take advantage of those without attorneys, by promoting standards they know are not correct. Also, Guerrero loves to refuse to allow the non-working spouse access to money to pay for an attorney, and they get crushed.


30

It might not be readily apparent, but Garrett, Guerrero, and Duenow are figuring heavily in the fed’s ongoing and wide-ranging investigation into civic corruption. Watch this space…


30

I’m watching … and waiting … for the full story on Judge Ginger.


21

Are any of them up for re-election? It may be until after Nov 5th before we hear more…


0

FINALLY someone is talking about this absolute hack. He’s rude. He’s condescending. He can be cruel. And all of this during people’s worst life moments.


32

…and may have a little addiction issue himself.


2

As someone who has appeared before most of the SLO County judges, I can tell you we have some really good ones, and some that have no business being on the bench. The wrong legal standard is used all the time. I had one judge laugh at my response when he asked me for my position on a legal standard. The appeals court agreed with me. If you laugh at a judge being wrong they can hold you in contempt, fine you, or remand you to jail. But when they do something wrong or show incompetence, it is extremely rare that anything happens to them even when they mock you in open court and try to embarass you in front of your peers. FYI, the best we have on the bench, by far, is Judge Crandall.


43

Judges need to be held more readily accountable on a daily basis and be audited dail.


24

Judge van Rooyen is excellent also.


0
1 2