How a Silicon Valley mother lost her son in a private courtroom designed to profit from her pain.
By Michael Phillips | Riptide Investigations
California’s family courts are selling justice to the highest bidder — one custody evaluation at a time.
In February 2022, Brenna Gano logged onto a Zoom call believing she was attending a routine scheduling check-in in her San Mateo divorce case. She was alone, at home, without support.
She was wrong about what she was walking into. By the end of that day, she had signed a binding Memorandum of Agreement before a privately compensated retired judge — one her own attorney had not told her would be there. She has spent the three years since trying to undo it.
“I walked in expecting something routine and walked out having signed away my rights to a private judge I never agreed to. They knew I have ADHD and used it to confuse me.” — Brenna Gano
That moment captures the quiet brutality of California’s family-court machine. Behind the language of “high conflict” and “best interests of the child,” a parallel legal economy has evolved — one where judges, evaluators, and therapists trade referrals like currency, and where the parent with fewer resources is not just disadvantaged. She is the product.
A Playbook for Profit
Across the state, parents are discovering that the same network of professionals controls nearly every custody evaluation and reunification order.
“It’s the same network, just different counties. San Mateo, San Diego, Santa Clara — all running the same playbook. They create conflict, bill for solving it, and never let anyone heal.” — ADA advocate, who asked not to be identified
The playbook begins with a psychological evaluation — often ordered under Family Code § 3111 or Evidence Code § 730, supposedly to assess parenting capacity. Once a parent is labeled “unstable,” a procession of AFCC-affiliated therapists, parenting coordinators, and “high-conflict specialists” steps in. Each charges hundreds of dollars an hour. Each reports back to the same judge who appointed them. Each cross-refers to the next professional in the chain.
In Brenna’s case, that chain included a therapeutic consultant who billed $36,354, a parenting coordinator at $20,000, a parenting coach at $33,640, a reunification therapist, two separate psychiatric evaluators, a DBT therapist, and a privately compensated retired judge. The total therapeutic and evaluation billing extracted from her household exceeded $157,000 — on top of approximately $300,000 in legal fees, against her ex-husband’s $900,000 in legal spending on his side alone.
Weaponizing Disability
For Brenna, a creative professional and mother of one, the attack came through her medical file.
“I was diagnosed with ADHD and PTSD, and instead of helping me, they used it as proof that I was unstable. If I show emotion, I’m labeled erratic; if I stay calm, they call me detached. There’s no winning.” — Brenna Gano
Under federal law — the Americans with Disabilities Act — courts are required to provide reasonable accommodations. In practice, California’s family courts rarely do. Neurodivergence and trauma become ammunition for custody transfer, not grounds for support. The result is a paper trail that turns symptoms of survival into evidence of unfitness.
The most damning evidence of how this worked in Brenna’s case is an email chain from March 2022, in which her own attorney and the sitting president of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts coordinated in writing to edit a favorable psychiatric evaluation — removing language they deemed “too advocacy-based” before it was finalized. What should have been exculpatory evidence was buried. The revised report was used to justify further therapy mandates. The 50/50 custody Brenna was told she’d regain after “checking the boxes” was never restored.
Her son is now 18 and estranged from her and her entire family.
The Industry of Suffering
From San Mateo to San Diego, parents describe the same economic loop: conflict generates evaluations, evaluations generate therapy, therapy generates more conflict.
“Family courts have become the front office of a mental-health racket, and disability is the product. Every diagnosis means more therapy, more supervision, more billable hours.” — Brenna Gano
An ADA advocate who has tracked dozens of similar cases across California and asked not to be identified calls it “legalized human trafficking of families.” Each treatment plan feeds the next professional in line. Judges retire and join private ADR firms. Evaluators lecture at AFCC conferences. Therapists write new best-practice manuals that justify the very services they sell.
“They break you down until you can’t fight back. You lose your home, your health, and your children — and then they say you need more therapy to cope with the trauma they caused. It’s the perfect loop because the system profits from your pain.” — ADA advocate, who asked not to be identified
What Comes Next
For Brenna, years of documentation have produced a case file thick enough to wall a room. Email chains showing attorney-supervised suppression of psychiatric findings. Billing records. Equity compensation releases from her ex-husband’s employer. A 117-page declaration filed at the clerk’s window. A 2023 motion that was placed on the calendar and never heard.
In January 2026, she wrote to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors requesting an independent external investigation into the county’s family court practices. Her hearing — originally scheduled for January 2026 — was continued to May 20, 2026. Her attempt to disqualify the presiding judge was denied.
She is representing herself because, after consulting more than twenty attorneys over three years, not one in San Mateo County would take her case.
California’s family-court crisis isn’t a series of isolated mistakes. It’s a business model. And Brenna Gano’s May hearing may be one of the first chances to force it to reckon with its own paper trail.
If you have faced psychological evaluations, reunification therapy, or private judging in California family court, contact Father & Co. confidentially.
This is the third article in the Riptide series on San Mateo County family court.
Keep Father & Co. Free
Father & Co. exists to support parents navigating separation, custody, and systems that are often confusing, isolating, or overwhelming. This work is grounded in lived experience, careful research, and respect for the real stakes families face.
If this article helped you feel less alone, better informed, or more grounded, reader support helps keep these resources free and available to others who need them.
Need help reviewing or organizing court or formal documents?
Father & Co. offers non-legal document review and organization for people representing themselves. This includes clarity, structure, neutral tone, and timeline organization — not legal advice or representation.
Have a story, experience, or resource to share?
Submissions are reviewed with care and discretion. We respect privacy and handle sensitive information responsibly.
Discover more from Fatherand.Co
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
