Background: The Tulare County Superior Court building in Porterville, California (Google Maps). Inset: Judge Robin Wolfe (Governor”s Press Office).
A California judge has been scolded by an independent state agency for “numerous acts of serious misconduct” while behind the bench.
Tulare County Superior Court Judge Robin Wolfe “abused her authority” on several occasions and acted “improperly” in others, the California Commission on Judicial Performance said in an 18-page public admonishment. The commission put it bluntly: “Judge Wolfe’s misconduct had a detrimental effect on both professional relationships with family court services staff and court administration, and on litigants.”
As the commission tells it, there were eight instances of misconduct. The first one they note began on Dec. 20, 2023, when Wolfe presided over a child custody and visitation review hearing. The judge ordered a Family Court Services employee to prepare a report on the case, but it was allegedly not completed on time. She subsequently threatened sanctions and instructed the court worker to appear before her — actions that the commission deemed inappropriate.
“The commission determined that Judge Wolfe abused her authority by ordering a court employee, who was neither counsel in, nor a party to, an action pending before the judge, to personally appear, and threatening to impose monetary sanctions,” the admonishment reads.
Wolfe again “abused her authority” the next summer. Beginning in July 2024, she presided over a family law case in which a mother wanted court permission to relocate with a child. The mother and father were ordered to attend a remote mediation session with a child counselor; however, when the counselor tried to call the mother and didn’t receive a response, the session was canceled.
The judge scolded the mother until the court learned that the counselor had called a previous number rather than a newer number provided at the hearing when mediation was ordered. Wolfe consequently instructed the counselor to appear before her and issue an apology to the mother. While she would later tell the commission that she did not consider her “request” to be an “order,” she acknowledged how it could have been interpreted as such.
The commission found that Wolfe had “abused her authority” and that her treatment of the counselor “once she appeared in court was discourteous and gratuitous, and gave the appearance of bias.”
Wolfe also allegedly acted improperly regarding cellphones in her courtroom. According to the commission, she “implemented blanket policies regarding cell phone possession that were contrary to local court rules” and “improperly confiscated a litigant’s cell phone and retained possession of it until the end of the court day.” The independent agency also contends that the judge “was misleading and/or inaccurate” when they asked her about her cellphone policy.
The reported misconduct did not stop there.
As the letter of admonishment puts it, “Judge Wolfe abused her authority, acted in contravention of the law, disregarded fundamental rights, and conveyed the appearance of bias by, beginning in or around November 2022, prohibiting a domestic violence advocate from sitting at counsel table, and by usually not allowing certain categories of support persons to sit at counsel table.”
The judge is also accused of acting against the Americans with Disabilities Act this year by not allowing a woman with complex post-traumatic stress disorder in a family law case to have a support person sit by her side. Though Wolfe said she would allow it if it became necessary — which it appeared to — the commission found that the judge’s actions and later explanations to them “reflected her ignorance of the requirements of the Rules of Court.”
The commission was not without understanding for Wolfe, writing that “some of Judge Wolfe’s misconduct involving the abuse of her authority appears to have been based, not in malice, bias, or indifference, but an attempt to ensure litigants were treated fairly.” She also “generally admitted her mistakes,” the agency said.
Still, “at a minimum,” they added, she exhibited “improper action,” and the situation was “nevertheless serious.”
The California Commission on Judicial Performance is made up of six public members, three judges, and two lawyers. Of the 11 of them, eight voted to impose the public admonishment, one voted to issue a private admonishment, and two did not participate.
Public admonishment is considered after the commission finds “serious misconduct,” but it is not as serious as a public censure, which can result in the judge being barred from receiving assignments from any California state court. “In the most serious cases, the commission may determine – following a hearing – to remove a judge from office,” the commission says.
Wolfe has served on the Tulare County Superior Court since 2017.
