OC judge created ‘appearance’ of gender bias, panel rules

A superior court judge showed gender bias in denying a woman's bid for a restraining order based on comments he made in delivering his opinion, a state appellate court determined.

The 4th District Court of Appeal instructed the Orange County Superior Court presiding judge to assign the remanded case to someone other than Judge Timothy J. Stafford.

Stafford abused his discretion when he indicated the petitioner may have actually liked the attention she was receiving and may have benefited from it, the appellate panel said in its Monday ruling. K.N. v. Stowell, G054963 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Aug. 27, 2018).

"We cannot definitively conclude the judge's comments show actual bias, but the comments were inappropriate and created an appearance of gender bias," Justice Richard M. Aronson wrote in the unanimous opinion [attached below], which was not certified for publication.

"The appellate court has reaffirmed one of the cornerstones of our justice system -- that every party is entitled to a fair and impartial decisionmaker," the petitioner's attorney, Brook John Changala, said Wednesday. "We also deeply respect the appellate court's willingness to confront the issue of bias directly."

Changala said he has not received a notification from the lower court that a new judge has been assigned.

The appellate court's opinion focused largely on a comment Stafford made outlining how he interpreted the evidence. In delivering his ruling, according to court documents, Stafford told the parties, "It was like Mr. Stowell was pretty much the big man on campus, had the bucks in his back pocket, and the petitioner was the best looking girl in school, and he was going to get her any way he possibly could, all right. And she knew it, and she liked it, because she got things."

This statement, the higher court ruled, showed "an appearance of judicial bias."

Opposing attorney Richard D. Rome, a sole practitioner, said the reversal was confusing because the opinion says the petitioner failed to show the judge was biased but remanded the case on judicial bias.

Instead, the panel concluded the court "abused its discretion," a perspective Rome also didn't understand.

"The problem with that analysis is that in this case the judge gave everybody a full hearing," Rome said. He added that the session in question lasted roughly five hours and included six witnesses and 40 exhibits, unusually extensive for a permanent restraining order hearing.

The three-justice panel, which included Acting Presiding Justice of Division Three Eileen C. Moore and Justice David A. Thompson, disagreed with the woman that comments like "your husband had to listen" showed actual bias.

It also examined a line of transcript that showed the judge saying, in reference to the woman's message to her husband, "If I got a letter from someone, or a phone call saying, I'll give you a blowjob every day for the rest of your life for a car, we will be at the Mercedes dealer pretty soon... ."

Changala argued in his brief this showed the judge viewed the petitioner as a sexual object. The court ruled that while the judge's comments were "clearly inappropriate," it did not imply the judge wanted oral sex from the petitioner.

It did rule, however, that the judge breached a canon of the Code of Judicial Ethics. "The judge's comment is the antithesis of judicial decorum and courtesy," Aronson wrote.

Stafford was not in chambers Wednesday. The Superior Court's public information officer was reviewing the order but was unable to respond before press time.