Court-Ordered Extortion: OC Mom Forced to Pay $7,200 to See Her Kids

Court-Ordered Extortion: OC Family Court forces mom to pay $7,200/month to see her kids. Judicial abuse & OCDA bankrupts protective parents. — Tawny Minna Grossman with her two children.

Mom Must Pay $150 an Hour for Supervised Visits While Abusive Ex Gets Free Rein

By Julie M. Anderson Holdburn

On March 7, 2025, during a recent hearing, Judge Paul Minerich relying on Minors Counsel Tracy Willis’ recommendations, denied Tawny Minna Grossman’s request for unmonitored visitation with her children, stating there was no justification. It smacks of Court-Ordered Extortion.

“I am not going to order unmonitored at this point; I don’t have any basis for that,” Minerich stated. “I am going to want to expand upon what you’ve got, and I wonder what you can handle financially—because it costs money, and I know that.”

Grossman emphasized the financial burden the court’s decisions were placing on her.

“I can’t handle any of it, and I am relying on my father to pay for monitored visits,” she told the judge. “We were hoping to present evidence today to provide you with more insight so that you have a broader understanding of this case—beyond what others are alleging about me.”

Despite her financial hardship, Minerich and Minors’ Counsel Tracy Willis agreed to increase Grossman’s visitation from four to twelve hours per week but only under the supervision of Frank Caruso or two other approved monitors. The cost? $150 per hour—adding up to $7,200 per month.

At this point, Grossman was in tears, expressing the anguish of being separated from her young children for over a year.

Later, Grossman suggested Patricia Nash as a more affordable monitor, but her ex-husband objected, claiming Nash had acted inappropriately when he was under supervised visitation.

Court-Ordered Extortion: Father Pushes to Reduce Visitation Even Further

When the judge asked Grossman’s ex-husband whether he was comfortable with the 12-hour visitation schedule, he objected and pushed to reduce it to just eight hours per week.

“Is that correct, Ms. Willis?” Minerich asked.

“Yes, as long as it’s with Frank Caruso,” Willis responded. “I think we take a step, and although it is concerning—Mother’s continued position, her inability to provide the court with anything to show what she has done—but with a professional monitor that I believe we can trust, as long as it’s one of these three.”

Grossman challenged the ruling, stating she had already completed multiple court-ordered therapies and had an evaluation from a doctor proving her fitness.

“At a long cause date, we can do that. That is where we need to go,” he said. “Right now, you want unmonitored visitation?”

“Yes,” Grossman confirmed. “There is no issue, and if you read the reports, you will see there is no issue.”

“I don’t want this to be overlooked,” she said. “I have been ordered into multiple therapies over the last year and a half, and I have completed all of them. I want the court to actually look at them—at some point, we have to stop ordering me to do more.”

Minerich dismissed her argument and postponed reviewing the reports.

Minerich and Willis’s demeanor throughout the hearing was deeply troubling to witness.

Court-Ordered Extortion: Previous Coverage of March 7 Hearing

Readers are encouraged to read the previous article in this series to understand more of the shocking statements and orders issued by Judge Minerich and Minors’ Counsel Tracy Willis during the March 7 hearing:

🔎 OCDA Ignores Good Cause Law, Family Court Violates Due Process in Tawny Minna Grossman Case

Judicial Delays and the Criminal Case Factor

Willis and Minerich debated how many days should be scheduled for the long cause hearing, which was pushed out until at least September. Willis argued that the ongoing criminal case and contempt proceedings against Grossman were constraints.

“You need to be ‘patient upon patient’ for the criminal case to resolve and for the contempt to resolve,” Minerich told Grossman.

At one point, Minerich referenced a declaration Grossman filed on November 21, 2024, and a Motion to Vacate filed on November 26, 2024. The motion was scheduled for a March 27, 2025 hearing, but Minerich indicated he intended to remove it from the calendar.

“I have an issue with you,” Minerich said, referencing what he claimed was duplicated legal argument language between the motion and her earlier supplemental declaration.

However, court records indicate the minute order Minerich referenced was not filed into the register of actions until after January 3, 2025, and was never served to the parties. Grossman was unaware of its existence until the March 7 hearing.

“If I need to sign the minute order, I will, then you will have a ruling on that,” Minerich said.

This raises a serious legal question: Can a judge legally dismiss a motion set for hearing without the party’s agreement?

Judicial Overreach and Due Process Violations: Judge Carmen Luege’s Unlawful Orders

In December 2023, Judge Carmen Luege refused to recuse herself from Grossman’s custody case despite a formal judicial disqualification motion citing bias.

Under California law (CCP § 170.3 and § 170.4), a third-party judge must review such motions—but no such review occurred. Instead, Luege continued presiding over the case and issued 13 custody orders in 2024, which legal experts argue are void.

Despite these legal concerns, both the family court and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office (OCDA) proceeded as if the orders were valid, using them as the basis for:

Grossman’s current criminal charges
Grossman’s inability to access her children without paying $7,200 per month

Court-Ordered Extortion: OCDA Ignoring Legal Protections for Domestic Violence Survivors

Nadeya Lavandero, Founder and Executive Director of Right to Protect, a court-qualified domestic violence expert, weighed in on Grossman’s case:

“Any notice made upon OCDA by a victim fleeing domestic violence or child abuse should satisfy the requirements under Penal Code § 278.7.”

“It is not the victim’s responsibility to ensure the DA’s Office processes a Good Cause Waiver.”

“In Tawny Minna Grossman’s case, OCDA has refused to implement legal protections, instead weaponizing the system against her. Their prosecutorial discretion has been abused to punish rather than protect, sending a terrifying message to victims that seeking safety will result in criminal prosecution rather than legal refuge.”

Why Is the FBI Not Involved?

In cases involving custodial interference across state or international borders, the FBI typically takes jurisdiction under:

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA) of 1993
The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)

However, in Grossman’s case, the FBI was not involved, raising serious concerns about selective enforcement and prosecutorial misconduct.

The FBI and OCDA were reached out to for comment.

Court-Ordered Extortion: A System Rigged Against Protective Parents

If Orange County’s family court and OCDA continue to violate laws and suppress evidence in child abuse cases, urgent independent oversight is needed.

The California Attorney General’s Office and the State Bar must investigate the actions of:

OCDA
Deputy DA Tammy Jacobs and Joe Faria
Judges Carmen Luege and Paul Minerich
Minors Counsel Tracy Willis

Will justice prevail for Tawny Minna Grossman and her children, or will Orange County continue silencing protective parents through judicial corruption and prosecutorial misconduct?

Call to Action: Share Your Story

If you or someone you know has experienced due process violations, judicial misconduct, or unjust restraining orders in California family courts, please reach out.

📩 Contact: juliea005@proton.me

Support Investigative Journalism:

This article is made possible by reader donations. Help expose family court corruption by donating here. Thank you for your support!