Kimberly Davis and Lucy Vellema said they were both victims of the notorious Orange County, California family court system.
(Below are Lucy and Kimberly telling their family court nightmares)
Rather than taking it, they are fighting back in a unique way, running for a county board seat.
Conventional wisdom reasons that family court is changed at the state level, or possibly the federal level, but these two ladies believe that they can do a lot to reform the Orange County family court system at the county level.
Julie Holburn has been writing about Orange County for years- along with being a victim- and she laid out some of the power they’ll have if elected.
“They can ask for reporting on cases that come on and outcomes.” Julie said. “There’s all kinds of ability they have to get new reports.”
She said as a Board of Supervisors they can get all sorts of data.
Both ladies told us that their ability to influence the courts comes in the Board of Supervisors power of the purse.
Accountability, transparency, and oversight were three words the two said repeatedly.
Before that, they said they needed to listen.
Julie told us that for years aggrieved parents were ignored at Board of Supervisors meetings. Their frustration boiled over at a recent board meeting when Board Supervisor Don Wagner dismissed complaints and told victims to “hire a lawyer.”
According to their accounts, what began as efforts to advocate for their children’s safety escalated into prolonged legal disputes, restricted access to their children, and, in most cases, retaliation for reporting abuse or speaking out.
After turning to county and state leadership for intervention, many parents say they encountered a consistent response: NO ONE would act.
That message became explicit during a Dec. 2 Board of Supervisors meeting, when Supervisor Don Wagner told parents:
“You can come here and complain about the courts, but we’re going to sit here and do nothing… Hire a lawyer. Take it up with the lawyers.”
For those in attendance, the exchange marked a turning point—shifting concerns from individual cases to a broader public issue.
An email sent to his office was not returned.
Primarily, both Ms. Davis and Ms. Vellema said they were ready to scrutinize and audit county contracts- amounting to billions they told us- which go to the courts and social services.
Julie said much of their power is derived from the Children’s Justice Act.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors does not oversee judicial rulings. However, it controls billions of dollars in county funding, contracts and oversight mechanisms, including those tied to social services and court-adjacent programs.
State law allows counties to establish multidisciplinary task forces addressing violence against women under California Penal Code §§ 14140–14143. While Orange County participates in state-linked initiatives and grant-funded programs—such as those connected to the Children’s Justice Act (CJA)—it is unclear whether the Board has created or implemented a formal, county-established task force as contemplated under those provisions.
According to information from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), participants in CJA-related efforts have included judicial officers, prosecutors and nonprofit representatives. Individuals identified in those efforts include former Orange County Presiding Judge Maria Hernandez, Orange County District Attorney’s Office representative Juliet L. Oliver, and Erin Runnion of The Joyful Child Foundation. Hernandez is currently the subject of a judicial recall effort.
The two said they were ready to create a task force, something that may be modeled on the Arizona joint legislative committee on family court orders, which Ms. Vellema told us she testified at.
Both singled a $24 million slush fund which goes to the minor’s counsel, the equivalent of a guardian ad litem, as a funding stream which corrupts the court.
Weighing over the OC Board of Supervisors race this year is the recent conviction of former Orange County Board of Supervisor Andrew Do.
A former politician who served on the Orange County Board of Supervisors was sentenced today to 60 months in federal prison for accepting more than $550,000 in bribes for directing and voting in favor of more than $10 million in COVID-19 pandemic relief funds to a charity affiliated with one of his daughters.
Andrew Hoang Do, 62, of Santa Ana, was sentenced by United States District Judge James V. Selna, who scheduled a restitution hearing for August 11.
Do pleaded guilty in October 2024 to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds.
“Elected officials have a sworn duty to put their constituents’ interests ahead of their own,” said United States Attorney Bill Essayli. “Public money intended to assist aging and ailing pandemic victims instead filled the coffers of Do, his family, and insiders. I commend our prosecutors and law enforcement partners for their work on this important case and for helping to remove a corrupt politician from his seat of power.”
“As a county supervisor, Andrew Do transformed the County of Orange into an ATM available to his insiders, his loved ones, and himself, withdrawing millions of dollars to buy houses, lavish dinners, and expensive wine while the elderly, the sick, and the vulnerable who depended on Andrew Do were left to fend for themselves,” said Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. “We, along with our federal partners, are continuing to peel back the layers of conspiracy to hold every thief accountable and return those stolen monies to the communities to which they belonged.”
The ladies said Do and others maintained incestuous relationships with the judiciary; Do’s wife is an Orange County Judge, Cheri Pham.
Post-script
Check out the fundraiser for Orange County.
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, Part 55, Part 56, Part 57, Part 58, Part 59, Part 60, Part 61, Part 62, Part 63, and Part 64.
