It was January 31, 2025, and I was one of several people logged onto the Orange County, California court website to witness a hearing in a child custody case: Kara Grant Vs. Evan Grant.
At the time, I knew little besides that this was a controversial case which needed eyes.
The judge, Mary Kreber Varipapa, came on shortly after I logged on.
The excitement was building, as I was one of several observers, along with the lawyers and parents, participating.
Quickly, there was a letdown.
Judge Varipapa paid lip service to open courtrooms, before announcing that whatever was about to happen was guided by privacy and HIPAA, the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act.
HIPAA, among other things, forbids doctors from sharing medical information with anyone besides the patient and anyone else who is authorized.
HIPAA did not seem to apply to a child custody hearing, but Judge Varipapa was the judge, and her word is final in the courtroom, including a virtual one.
So, the participants went into a breakout room, while I and others watched a blank screen until I had enough and logged off.
Another observer that day was Julie Holburn, who wrote about the affair.
When this reporter attempted to attend today’s hearing via remote access, Orange County Public Information Officer (PIO) Kostas Kalaitzidis notified this reporter at 1:39pm the case was closed and then questioned this journalist’s credentials.
"In addition, I would like to clarify to you this Ex Parte hearing is not a public hearing.”
After some back and forth, remote access was eventually granted, but upon entry into the virtual courtroom, Judge Kreber Varipapa immediately announced that the proceeding was “closed” to the public, citing HIPAA concerns and the sensitive nature of the discussion.
“This case remains a closed proceeding with highly sensitive and HIPAA-protected information being actively discussed,” Judge Kreber Varipapa stated. “While the case itself is not deemed confidential, this portion of the matter is. At this time, Department L65 is deemed a closed proceeding. Anyone here from the public or online, we are going to put you in the waiting room. Anyone in the audience, we are going to have you wait outside.”
Julie also reached out to the Orange County courts Public Information Officer (PIO), Kostas Kalaitzidis, who proceeded to impugn her integrity while suggesting she couldn’t cover custody cases in Orange County since she has a custody case there herself. He also claimed that she didn’t follow the rules, and this was why she wasn’t allowed to witness the hearing.
Kalaitzidis noted.
Your request should have been submitted five business days in advance of the hearing. Also, please notify me of the news outlet you represent. Normally, journalism ethics do not allow a person to cover their own news items. Thus, should the case you want to cover be your own, I would like to discuss the matter with your editor.
As Julie explained to me, the hearing was set on the fly a day before it was heard, so it was impossible for her to give five days’ notice.
With a Substack, Julie is her own editor; so, Mr. Kalaitzidis was already discussing things with the right person when he asked to speak to her editor.
Julie told me she was being blocked from getting public records from Orange County courts, which are available to everyone. As such, her perceived conflicts as a journalist weren’t relevant anyway.
Julie has been shaking things up in Orange County since transitioning to journalism about two years ago- including being subpoenaed in a criminal case- Mr. Kalaitzidis’ complaints had more to do with an aggressive reporter providing much needed scrutiny of judge's he’s paid to protect than any supposed conflict she may have.
I reached out to Mr. Kalaitzidis by email, but he didn’t respond.
Julie told me that Judge Varipapa has a habit of closing courtrooms the way she did on January 31, 2025.
The Grant case first received media coverage in November 2024. Another Orange County judge, Michele Bell, had denied a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against both parties, but Judge Bell ordered Evan Grant to give up his firearms.
That’s not allowed, so the appeal’s court reversed her decision.
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed an order to a lawyer/business executive to relinquish a firearm—a command the justices said a family law judge had no authority to issue—but spurned the party’s request to invalidate a directive not to communicate with the children’s coaches or therapists.
Although that order is no longer in effect, the appellant argued, it could have an impact on a possible State Bar disciplinary proceeding against him.
Presiding Justice Kathleen O’Leary authored the unpublished opinion, filed Monday. She found no error in Orange Superior Court Judge Michele Bell’s denial of a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) that Irvine attorney Evan William Grant sought to have imposed on his former wife, Huntington Beach lawyer Kara Elizabeth Grant, but said that because Bell also denied the bid by the ex-wife for DVRO against her former husband, the judge was powerless to make the firearm order.
Despite that, the case had little controversy until January 17, 2025. That’s when Judge Varipapa, in a temporary order, granted custody to a third party, Evan’s parents, and ordered them to move into the family home.
Julie told me that Evan’s father is an influential family lawyer, and she believes that’s at least partially responsible for this bizarre order.
If that wasn’t bad enough, Judge Varipapa made this monumental decision without taking any testimony.
“Court is not accepting testimony or argument at this time,” Judge Varipapa’s order stated.
I reached out to the minor’s counsel on the case, Tisha Harman, but she did not respond.
Ms. Harman works for the non-profit- Center for Children and Family Law- which provides all sorts of court services, including minor’s counsel.
{I’ve found that non-profits with the word children or kids in it who provide court services in child custody matters, tend to help the system more than children. Check out my article on KidSide, as one example}
I also reached the mother’s and father’s attorneys by email, but neither of them responded either.
I asked Julie if she’d ever seen a child custody order which grants custody to a third party over either parent. She did not, but I have seen it before. It was from September 7, 2012, in the Rucki case.
This order led directly to two of the five Rucki children running away on April 19, 2013, and being hidden for two and a half years.
Julie told me that Judge Varipapa’s order is not as draconian as Judge Knutson’s order, since the parents are allowed limited contact with their children.
Julie also told me that her analysis of the court record has found no evidence which would warrant such a drastic order.
It’s hard to believe any judge would emulate Judge David Knutson, but Judge Varipapa seems to want the same kind of notoriety. She will get it.
Postscript
Check out the fundraiser for Orange County, and here are the previous articles in the series. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8. Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15, Part 16, Part 17, Part 18, Part 19, Part 20, Part 21, Part 22, Part 23, Part 24, Part 25. Part 26, Part 27, Part 28, Part 29, Part 30, Part 31, Part 33, Part 34, Part 35, Part 36, Part 37, Part 38, Part 39, Part 40, Part 41, Part 42, Part 43, Part 44, Part 45, Part 46, Part 47, Part 48, Part 49, Part 50, Part 51, Part 52, Part 53, Part 54, and Part 55.
Share this post