A judge in California has come under fire from an independent state agency for committing “numerous acts of serious misconduct” while serving on the bench.

The California Commission on Judicial Performance issued an 18-page public admonishment against Tulare County Superior Court Judge Robin Wolfe, accusing her of “abusing her authority” on several occasions and behaving “improperly” in others. The commission stated bluntly, “Judge Wolfe’s misconduct negatively impacted professional relationships with family court services staff and court administration, as well as the litigants involved.”

The commission highlighted eight incidents of misconduct, starting on December 20, 2023, when Wolfe oversaw a child custody and visitation review hearing. During this session, she demanded that a Family Court Services employee produce a report, which was allegedly delayed. Wolfe then threatened to impose sanctions and ordered the court employee to appear before her, actions the commission later criticized as inappropriate.

The admonishment noted, “The commission determined that Judge Wolfe abused her authority by demanding a court employee, who was neither legal counsel nor a party in the case before her, to appear personally and threatening monetary penalties.”

Wolfe’s “abuse of authority” continued into the following summer. In July 2024, she was involved in a family law case where a mother sought legal permission to relocate with her child. Both parents were instructed to attend a virtual mediation with a child counselor. However, the session was canceled when the counselor failed to reach the mother using the correct phone number.

Initially, Judge Wolfe reprimanded the mother, but it was later discovered that the counselor had called an outdated number instead of the updated one provided during the hearing. Wolfe subsequently ordered the counselor to apologize in court to the mother. Although Wolfe later clarified to the commission that she viewed her directive as a “request” rather than an “order,” she admitted it might have been perceived differently.

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.