Court commissioner rebuked over actions in family court case

By Paul J. Young

A Riverside County Superior Court commissioner was under an official reprimand Wednesday from a state agency tasked with monitoring the conduct of judicial officers because of her behavior while trying to resolve a custody dispute.

Commissioner Wendy M. Harris this week received a public admonishment from the California Commission on Judicial Performance, which rebuked her for the handling of a family court case during which she was “discourteous, argumentative, impatient and demeaning to the (two) litigants, and appeared to be embroiled in the proceedings,” the commission said in a statement.

According to the Riverside County Superior Court Executive Office, Presiding Judge Judith Clark received and reviewed the commission’s report.

“At this time, Commissioner Harris is not hearing cases; however, she is still an employee of the court,” Executive Office spokeswoman Marita Ford told City News Service.

“The court respects and appreciates the oversight of the Commission on Judicial Performance regarding the conduct of its judicial officers,” Ford said. “The court takes very seriously its obligation to ensure the highest ethical standards for all judicial officers in order to maintain the public’s faith and confidence in their system of justice.”

Harris, who previously practiced law in Los Angeles County, was hired by the Superior Court on Aug. 1, 2019.

In October 2021, she was disciplined by then-Presiding Judge John Monterosso “regarding her poor temperament in the handling of a family law matter” unrelated to the one that prompted the latest reprimand, according to the Commission on Judicial Performance.

Monterosso’s disciplinary action included requiring Harris to attend classes, though their specific orientation wasn’t disclosed. She was permitted to remain active on the bench.

The case that yielded complaints to the commission related to a custody dispute between two convicted felons who had previously cohabitated, identified in court documents as “Ms. H” and “Mr. B.”

The litigants had a young daughter, and Harris had originally awarded dominant custody to Mr. B, with Ms. H only permitted weekend and holiday visitation rights.

On March 16, 2022, Mr. B appeared before the court to complain that Ms. H had taken the girl from him, even though he had sent her to stay with extended “family” in the Midwest. The hearing was originally to resolve a request for change-of-custody and petition for a domestic violence restraining order filed by Ms. H. But the latter was not in court, leaving only Mr. B with his complaint about no longer having custody of his daughter, according to court transcripts.

Commissioner Harris had her clerk telephone Ms. H via speaker, after which a conversation ensued in which the commissioner asked the woman why she hadn’t appeared to address the papers she’d submitted.

When Ms. H explained that she was at a bus stop, attempting to reach the downtown courthouse after dropping her daughter at school, Harris interrupted.

“Why do you have this child? You’re only supposed to have the child on the weekends,” Harris said, ordering the woman to bring herself and the girl to court immediately.

Ms. H indicated that wouldn’t be possible, prompting Harris to reply, “Hold on. How that’s going to work is, you’re going to bring the child to this courthouse, because you’re in violation of my court order. If you do not, I can tell you that I have measures to retrieve that child,” transcripts said.

Ms. H responded that she couldn’t comply and tried to explain why she had taken full custody of her daughter, but Harris muted her and ruled that “the petitioner is in violation of my court order.”

Harris then directed Mr. B to take paperwork to the District Attorney’s Office’s Child Abduction Unit, whose investigators would assist him in retrieving his daughter, transcripts stated.

That afternoon, Ms. H appeared before Harris with her daughter, along with a prosecutor and Child Abduction Unit investigator. The commissioner did not give the two men an opportunity to speak, but instead “engaged in an argument with Ms. H,” the commission wrote.

The mother repeatedly asserted that returning the girl to Mr. B would place her at risk.

“He sent her out of state, and the people out of state returned her to me. I was trying to let you know that,” Ms. H said.

Harris appeared to become incensed at one point, telling Ms. H, “You’re digging a ditch. You’re digging a grave,” according to the transcripts.

On the morning of March 17, 2022, another hearing was held on the matter, with Ms. H, Mr. B and their daughter present, as well as staff from the DA’s Office, including two supervising deputy district attorneys. Harris told the DA’s representatives that their presence wouldn’t be required.

Harris abruptly awarded sole custody of the girl to her mother, and when Mr. B challenged the change of custody, Harris said, “Quite frankly, the two of you have horrible pasts, both of you. You’re both convicted felons, and you both are on parole currently. So you both have issues.”

A Family Court judge observed the proceeding, which led Monterosso to formally reprimand Harris in writing three months later, culminating in the probe and reprimand by the Commission on Judicial Performance.

More from Riverside County