On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, the California Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished Tulare County Superior Court Judge Robin L. Wolfe for multiple instances of misconduct.
The decision, stemming from a tentative admonishment issued on September 2, 2025, followed a December 4, 2025, hearing where Judge Wolfe, represented by attorney Kathleen M. Ewins, contested the initial ruling. Judge Wolfe waived her right to formal proceedings and review by the Supreme Court.
The commission’s decision, based on Article VI, section 18(d) of the California Constitution, cited several incidents. One involved Judge Wolfe ordering Family Court Services (FCS) Director Angela Rodd-Terry to personally appear in court and threatening monetary sanctions for a delayed report in the case of Navarro v. Ramos. The commission found this to be an abuse of authority, as Ms. Rodd-Terry was neither counsel nor a party in the case.
Another incident concerned Rodriguez v. Mendoza, where Judge Wolfe summoned Child Custody Recommending Counselor (CCRC) Irene Rodriguez to court after a misunderstanding regarding a missed mediation appointment. The commission determined that Judge Wolfe was already aware of the error before demanding Ms. Rodriguez’s appearance. Judge Wolfe then directed Ms. Rodriguez to apologize to a litigant in open court, which the commission deemed discourteous and indicative of bias.
In Hettick v. Hettick, Judge Wolfe confiscated a litigant’s cell phone during proceedings and ordered her to return at the end of the day to retrieve it. The commission viewed this as an abuse of judicial authority and creating an appearance of embroilment. Judge Wolfe also made remarks about the litigant “playing games” with court orders and threatened foster care, which the commission found improper and coercive.
Furthermore, the commission addressed Judge Wolfe’s policy, implemented between June 2023 and June 2024, regarding cell phones in her courtroom. Initially, litigants were required to place phones in bags, but the policy was later revised to prohibit cell phones entirely, with exceptions only for court staff and attorneys. The commission found these policies to be an abuse of authority.
The commission also investigated an incident in Magee v. Magee, where a support person was initially denied entry to the courtroom. The commission found that Judge Wolfe’s statements conveyed the appearance that her courtroom was not fully open to the public, potentially contravening the law.
Additionally, Judge Wolfe was found to have misrepresented the duration of her cell phone policy to Supervising Judge Tara James, leading the commission to conclude that her statement was misleading.
Finally, the commission cited Judge Wolfe’s practice of excluding domestic violence support persons from sitting at the counsel table, a violation of Family Code section 6303. In Longoria v. Longoria, Judge Wolfe mishandled a reasonable accommodation request from a litigant with Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD), initially denying her support person to sit at the counsel table.
The commission acknowledged Judge Wolfe’s admissions of mistakes but emphasized the seriousness of her misconduct, particularly the abuse of judicial power. The commission also noted the detrimental effect of Judge Wolfe’s actions on professional relationships and litigants. Eight commission members voted for the public admonishment, while one voted for a private admonishment.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
