A single slammed door outside a Campbell law office did more than spike traffic on social media. The short clip has yanked a quiet corner of California family court into the spotlight, with parents and advocates questioning how judges appoint outside lawyers for children and how privately paid “parenting coordinators” operate. Critics say the overlapping decision makers and unpredictable bills for families and taxpayers have been hiding in plain sight, and that the sudden scrutiny is forcing county judges to promise only modest procedural tweaks.
The video, recorded by journalist Susan Bassi, has circulated widely online and, according to Davis Vanguard, has topped more than 650,000 views on YouTube. The outlet reports the clip helped trigger a mandatory December 16 meeting of Santa Clara County judges and attorneys who serve as minors counsel. At that meeting, the court announced new fee-application forms that are slated to take effect in 2026.
Decades Of Warnings
Concerns about outsourcing judicial power and concentrating appointments in the hands of a few go back years. As outlined in the Komar Report from 2000, former presiding judges urged more training, rotation, disclosure and review for attorneys appointed to represent children. Reformers say those early recommendations were never fully carried out, and that the current controversy is the predictable result.
A Case That Lays The Problem Bare
One recent Santa Clara County case file shows how appointments and fees can stack up quickly. In that matter, Judge Stuart Scott appointed an attorney to represent children in 2020. The attorney later filed a fee request for 17.4 hours at $325 per hour, roughly $5,525 in total, and asked that about 80 to 100 percent of those fees be paid by taxpayers. Less than a month after the payment was approved, the case added a privately paid parenting coordinator at $400 per hour under a stipulation that critics say lacked required disclosures and an oath. The result, according to Davis Vanguard, was overlapping quasi-judicial decision makers and mounting costs.
Where Law And Practice Diverge
California law allows courts to appoint counsel to represent a child’s best interests in custody and visitation disputes, and the Rules of Court spell out training and qualification standards for those appointments. The parenting coordinator label, however, does not have a clean statutory definition. Practitioners say attorneys in that role often operate under private stipulations rather than through a clearly regulated public process, a gap noted in appellate treatment of Family Code section 3150 and related rules. For background on that statutory framework, see FindLaw.
Why Reformers Say More Is Needed
Reform advocates cite three connected problems. First, they point to repeated off-panel appointments that come without detailed, on-the-record explanations. Second, they say a small circle of attorneys receives a disproportionate share of the work. Third, they highlight billing practices that can leave parents, and sometimes taxpayers, facing large and unexpected legal bills.
On top of that, many family court hearings take place without court reporters. Without transcripts, meaningful appellate review becomes difficult, which in turn limits remedies when appointments or invoices appear improper…