ATTORNEY | JUDGES

Hon. Francisca P. Tisher: Family Law Judge until 2008

• Judge Tisher is the best of the worst - she "sort of" attempts to resolve matters fairly. I think she tries harder to avoid ever being repremanded by the Judicial Branch again.
• Still need to be careful - See the following Admonishment by the California Judicial Branch.
• Will Hon. Tischer make you pay more support than what you actually make? - Likely!
• Will Hon. Tischer hold a parent in Contempt when Lied To and When provided with Rock Solid Evidence showing the Spouse Lied to them and to the Court? - NO! Apparently Judge Tischer is not concerned with being lied to.
• Click here for the PDF file:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING
JUDGE FRANCISCA P. TISHER
DECISION AND ORDER IMPOSING
PUBLIC ADMONISHMENT

This disciplinary matter concerns Judge Francisca P. Tisher, a judge of the Napa
County Superior Court since June 1998. She was previously a judge of the Napa County
Municipal Court from May 1995 to June 1998. Her current term began in January 2003.
Following the appearance of Judge Tisher and her attorney, Mr. James A. Murphy, on March
30, 2004, pursuant to rule 116 of the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Performance, and
good cause appearing, the Commission on Judicial Performance issues this public
admonishment pursuant to article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution, based upon
the following Statement of Facts and Reasons:

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
On the afternoon of October 3, 2002, Judge Tisher was sent an e-mail message by a
commissioner of her court concerning a family law case, Maroney v. Ruiz, then being handled
by the commissioner.

Maroney v. Ruiz involved a couple who had divorced in Texas; the father had moved
to New Jersey and the mother had moved to California. In February 2002, the parties
stipulated in the Napa County Superior Court that the parties would take certain actions and
that California would retain jurisdiction over custody issues. However, in July 2002, the
father asked the New Jersey court to assume jurisdiction over the custody dispute. The New
Jersey court did assume jurisdiction, on August 30, 2002, but the order assuming jurisdiction
was stayed by a New Jersey appellate court on September 5, 2002. After the stay went into
effect, the New Jersey trial court judge communicated with the California commissioner
handling the case, and the commissioner agreed to prepare an order declining California’s
jurisdiction. On October 3, 2002, while the New Jersey appellate court’s stay was still in
effect, the father removed one of the children from school in California and took him back to
New Jersey, without notifying the mother or school officials. The police, Napa Child
Abduction Unit, and FBI were contacted. Later that day, the commissioner sent Judge Tisher
the e-mail message mentioned above.

The e-mail message the commissioner sent to Judge Tisher on the afternoon of
October 3 read, “The judge in New Jersey asked me to prep an order declining jurisdiction.
Here is what I have written. I forgot to do it and now someone came and picked up the kid
and it sounds like it is going to heat up but I would like to have it heat up in NJ.” Judge
2
Tisher replied on October 4 at 9:45 a.m. She wrote, “It looks fine. I don’t exactly know what
you mean by the sentence ‘The law of venue jurisdiction differs from venue for custody and
visitation and that issue is not yet upon us.’” The commissioner replied one minute later, at
9:46, “The rules for child SUPPORT are different from the rules for CUSTODY. It is entirely
possible Napa will be the appropriate jurisdiction for child support.” A minute later, at 9:47,
Judge Tisher e-mailed the commissioner, “OK. We’ll keep it in. [A clerk] is in my office and
I’ll tell her to fax it off.” The commissioner replied one minute later, at 9:48, with the fax
number, and added, “They are waiting by the fax for it in NJ. Also [the mother’s attorney]
has an ex parte for today in this case and she is not stipping to a Commish.”

The order was then signed by the commissioner, dated September 30, 2002, and filestamped
September 30, 2002. A copy was transmitted by fax to New Jersey.
Later the same morning (October 4), Judge Tisher presided over the ex parte hearing
set by counsel for the mother. The transcript of that hearing shows that Judge Tisher called
the case before the father’s attorney arrived, and stated to the mother’s attorney:
THE COURT: …I have had a chance to review the order to show cause for
modification of child custody, visitation, attorneys fees and costs and
immediate return of the child and other orders and the injunctive order.
(10/4/02 R.T. 3:21-24.)

Shortly thereafter, Father’s attorney arrived, and Judge Tisher said:
THE COURT: What I was indicating is that I understand that we have
some serious issues here and I have had a chance to look at the paperwork
and I’m not sure that you have.

MR. ROTHSCHILD [Father’s attorney]: I have not.

THE COURT: I also have the file in front of me, which indicates that there
was an order filed by Commissioner Boyd on September 30th, 2002. I don’t
know if you both have copies of that, but it is an order where she declined
jurisdiction.

MS. RICHARDS: I have never received that, your Honor.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: Nor have I.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And--
THE COURT: I don’t see the proof of service attached to this.
3
(10/4/02 R.T. 5:1-17; emphasis added.)
A short time later, Judge Tisher stated that she was not going to make any orders that
day, and asked mother’s counsel what she would like to do. After the attorney began to reply,

Judge Tisher interrupted the attorney and stated:
THE COURT: I’m not going to make an order when one was made
September 30th, the order having the child returned. It looks like the child
was just taken to New Jersey. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong and I
understand that your client would like to have the matter resolved one way
or the other, but certainly I cannot do that on an ex parte.
(10/4/02 R.T. 7:9-15; emphasis added.)
Mother’s counsel then asked that the matter be put on calendar for the following Monday.

Judge Tisher responded:
THE COURT: One of my problems is that I have an order here in the court
file from September 30th indicating that jurisdiction has been declined by
the Superior Court of California, County of Napa. So I think this really
goes back as to how you wish to proceed.
(10/4/02 R.T. 8:9-13; emphasis added.)

At the time that she presided at the October 4 hearing, Judge Tisher knew that the
order declining jurisdiction had been signed and filed earlier that same morning, not on
September 30, 2002. During the hearing, she made misleading statements repeatedly
indicating to the parties that the order had been filed on September 30, 2002. The making of
these misleading statements was contrary to canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which
provides that judges should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Commission members Justice Vance W. Raye, Mr. Marshall B. Grossman, Judge
Frederick P. Horn, Mr. Michael A. Kahn, Mr. Jose C. Miramontes, Mrs. Penny Perez, Judge
Risë Jones Pichon, and Ms. Barbara Schraeger voted to impose a public admonishment. Mrs.
Crystal Lui did not participate in this matter. There is currently one public member vacancy on
the commission.
Dated: April 8, 2004
____________________________________
Honorable Vance W. Raye
Chairperson

---

Key:	Average Grade Scale
A	A-	B+	B	B-	C+	C	C-	D+	D	D-	F
4.0 - 3.7	3.69 - 3.50	3.49 - 3..2	3.19 - 2.7	2.69 - 2.5	2.49 - 2.2	2.19 - 1.7	1.69 - 1.50	1.49 - 1.20	1.19 - 0.7	0.69 - 0.50	0.49 - 0

---

THIS WEBSITE and all of the materials and information on the Site is general in nature and are provided for informational purposes only.
Nothing on the Site should be construed as legal advice or used as a substitute for legal advice. The opinions stated in this site are based on personal experience.