Page 1
Pro Per Girl, 17, Largely Emerges as Victor in C.A. Battle
Justices Say Civil Harassment Restraining Order Imposed on Her Is to Evaporate When She Reaches Age 18; Case Involves Widely Reported Episode She Denominates ‘Kidnapping’ That Led to New Legislation
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
Above is a screenshot from a YouTube video of a press conference conducted by 17-year-old Maya Laing, center, urging Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign into law a bill passed by the Legislature barring the commitment of youths—such as she and her brother (to the right of her, partially obscured) experienced—to undergo “reunification therapy” in a camp, aimed at a re-bonding with a parent. A three-year civil harassment restraining order imposed on her based on her social media assaults on a former girlfriend of her mother, whom she accused of acting in complicity with her mother in victimizing her, will be vacated on her 18th birthday in January, under a Sixth District Court of Appeal decision. |
A self-represented 17-year-old girl—who, at age 15, in a widely-noted episode, leading to enactment of California legislation, was forcibly taken from her father’s custody and compelled to submit to “reunification therapy,” including commitment at a camp, to repair a rift with her mother—is largely the victor in a battle in the Sixth District Court of Appeal with the mother’s former romantic partner.
Under the decision, filed Sept. 9 and certified for publication on Thursday, a three-year civil harassment restraining order imposed on Aug. 31, 2023, by Santa Cruz Superior Court Judge Jordan Sheinbaum against the teenager, Maya Laing, will be lifted in less than four months, rather than expiring in 2026. The order is in favor of therapist Ellen Garfield, ex-girlfriend of Maya’s mother, Jessica Laing.
Maya, in each of two postings on both Instagram and TikTok in July 2023, accused Garfield of having been supportive of alleged sexual abuse by the mother toward her and her younger brother, Sebastian, after custody was shifted by court order to her from the father, Justin Liang, and the purported “kidnapping” of them. She also asserted that Garfield spied on her and Sebastian after they fled on May 29, 2023, from the mother’s new home in the State of Washington, hiding out in Santa Cruz, where the father resides.
Garfield insists that the allegations against her are wholly false, and accounts of sexual abuse were determined in the course of the separate custody proceeding to lack credibility.
Both the teenager and the therapist represented themselves in connection with Maya’s appeal from the restraining order, made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §527.6, barring any further posting of Garfield’s contact information or defaming or harassing her.
Meanwhile, in the custody proceeding, the minors have been returned to Justin Liang’s home.
Turning 18
Maya argued in her appellate brief:
“[T]he TRIAL COURT issued injunctive measures that would go on past MAYA turning 18. The conditions that led to MAYA’s act of alleged harassment would logically not be possible to exist after she turned 18 and was no longer in the jurisdiction of the Family Court or her mother’s custody. This is further evidence that the TRIAL COURT did not take into consideration the complete set of circumstances that would have caused the act and would need to be present to likely cause it again.”
Garfield countered:
“…Maya’s allegations that Ellen supports child abuse and spies for Maya’s mother are tied not to Maya’s current custody situation, but to Maya’s ongoing conflict with her mother. Although Ellen had extricated herself entirely from Maya’s family, and had secured multiple no-contact orders against other members of Maya’s family, Maya still decided to begin doxxing Ellen online. The trial court did not err in determining that Maya reasonably might at some point in the future decide to doxx Ellen online again.”
(“Doxxing” entails vengeful publication of private information.)
Maya will turn 18, thus attaining adulthood, on Jan. 27.
Danner’s Opinion
Justice Allison M. Danner authored the opinion. Although agreeing with Garfield that Sheinbaum’s order is supported by “clear and convincing evidence to establish the existence of unlawful harassment,” Maya’s point that the order should not remain in effect once she turns 18 found favor with the jurist.
Danner wrote that “there is insufficient evidence in the record to support continuing the restraining order beyond” Maya reaching age 18. The jurist said that “the circumstances that precipitated her social media posts were closely tied to the family court case” and her “asserted fear of being returned to her mother’s custody and thereby subjected to further reunification therapy and alleged abuse” which would not persist when she reached her majority.
She added that “there is ample evidence” that Maya posted her attacks on Garfield because she actually believed the therapist “was still supporting her mother and engaged in conduct to help her mother locate and retrieve the children” while there is “insufficient evidence” to support Garfield’s contention that the restraining order is needed in light of Maya’s “ongoing conflict with her mother.”
First Amendment Invoked
Putting forth a First Amendment argument, Maya said:
“If we silence victims from asking for help from those who have more power than they do, what good is our right to free speech?
“MAYA’s calls for help, broadcast on Instagram/TikTok, can reasonably viewed by her and many as the only reason she was able to become free and safe from the abuse she endured.
“MAYA’s case had substantial statewide, national, and global attention. MAYA’s online presence and telling of her story is what generated that attention. Silencing MAYA or those like her is not only dangerous, but also a blow to the right to free speech and the pursuit and life and liberty.”
Danner responded that whether the allegations posted by Maya constituted “constitutionally protected free speech is closely tied to whether the posts were for a legitimate purpose.” She said that Sheinbaum’s implied finding that there was no such purpose “is supported by substantial evidence in the record,” noting that no evidence indicates that Garfield was still “involved in the family’s affairs” by the time Maya and Sebastian returned to Santa Cruz.
Publicizing of Matter
Danner said in a footnote that Maya and Sebastian are “subjects of a widely publicized custody dispute in Santa Cruz County Superior Court.” As Maya put it in her appellate brief, her “case had substantial statewide, national, and global attention.”
One online news report says:
“The story of Maya and her brother Sebastian, 12, garnered international attention on Oct. 20 [2022], when a company called Assisted Interventions, Inc. sent several people to their [paternal] grandmother’s house to take them to a court-ordered ‘therapy’ program.
“The siblings did not want to go, but despite their protestations, were forced into a waiting car—both of them crying and struggling—while Santa Cruz Police stood by and friends and family watched.”
There was a videorecording of the seizure of the minors that was posted on YouTube, drawing sizable attention.
The subsequent involuntary commitment of Maya and her brother for four days to a “reunification camp” for therapy served as a stimulus for state legislation proscribing such treatment. It’s now largely barred under Senate Bill 331, carried by Sen. Susan Rubio, and enacted as Family Code §3193, as well as affecting other provisions.
After the bill was approved by the Legislature on Sept. 14, 2023, Maya spoke at a press conference in Pasadena, recounting what she and her brother had experienced and urging that the governor sign the measure into law. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct, 13, 2023, did so.
Withholding of Identities
Although the identities of the parties are matters of broad public knowledge, Danner opted to denominate Maya as “M.L.” and Garfield as “E.G.” She explained, in a footnote:
“We refer to the parties by their initials to protect their privacy interests.”
Danner cited California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4).
Rule 8.90 says that it “provides guidance on the use of names in appellate court opinions” and points to particular circumstances where “the reviewing court should consider” according anonymity.
Subd. (b)(4), cited by Danner, refers to “[v]ictims in criminal proceedings.” There is no reference in the opinion to any past or pending criminal proceedings.
Danner’s footnote continues:
“Although the self-represented parties have not requested anonymity in this appeal, protective nondisclosure is appropriate on the facts of this case. Moreover, maintaining the parties’ anonymity is consistent with the confidentiality orders in the underlying civil case and closely related family law case….”
The case is E.G. v. M.L, 2024 S.O.S. 3437.
Statutory Provision
Family Code §3193(a), inspired by the situation encountered by Maya and Sebastian, provides:
“(a) Notwithstanding any other law, a court shall not order family reunification treatments, programs, or services, including, but not limited to, camps, workshops, therapeutic vacations, or educational programs that, as a condition of enrollment or participation, require or result in any of the following: [¶] (1) A no-contact order. [¶](2) An overnight, out-of-state, or multiday stay. [¶] (3) A transfer of physical or legal custody of the child. [¶] (4) The use of private youth transporters or private transportation agents engaged in the use of force, threat of force, physical obstruction, acutely distressing circumstances, or circumstances that place the safety of the child at risk. [¶] (5) The use of threats of physical force, undue coercion, verbal abuse, isolation from the child’s family, community, or other sources of support, or other acutely distressing circumstances.”
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company