She Said She Was Fleeing Abuse. He Said He Was “Untouchable.” What Did Ventura County’s DA Know?

 The Charges

Esquivel’s sworn declaration, filed in a separate domestic violence restraining order proceeding in Los Angeles County, states she “fled” her residence on Nov. 14, 2024, out of concern for her and her son’s safety. The Ventura County District Attorney’s Office filed the criminal complaint Jan. 14, 2025 — one day after Esquivel’s temporary domestic violence restraining order expired.

Prosecutors initially charged Esquivel with one felony count of child stealing under Penal Code section 278 and one misdemeanor count of disobeying a court order under Penal Code section 166(a)(4). The complaint also alleged two aggravating factors under Penal Code section 278.6(a): that the child was withheld from the lawful custodian for more than two months and that Esquivel denied the child an appropriate education during the alleged abduction. Prosecutors later dismissed the misdemeanor count.

Bane was recovered in El Centro on Feb. 13, 2025.

The 995 Motion To Dismiss

Esquivel’s attorney, Frances Prizzia, filed a motion June 22 under Penal Code section 995 seeking to set aside the child-stealing charge. The motion argues the judge presiding over the March 23 preliminary hearing denied Esquivel a substantial right by preventing cross-examination about Robert Ortiz Jr., the child’s father, and Esquivel’s asserted child-safety concerns. The defense contends those rulings improperly treated the evidence as an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying family court proceedings, preventing inquiry into issues relevant to Esquivel’s state of mind, witness credibility and the prosecution’s burden to prove malicious intent under Penal Code section 278.

The motion further argues that, without that excluded evidence, the preliminary hearing record does not establish probable cause to infer the malicious specific intent required under section 278. In the alternative, it argues Esquivel received ineffective assistance of counsel at the preliminary hearing if prior counsel failed to preserve those issues adequately.

In a March bench brief filed before the preliminary hearing, Senior Deputy District Attorney Laurel McWaters argued the court should exclude evidence that would re-litigate the underlying custody proceedings, that Esquivel could not establish the legal elements of a necessity defense, and that the prosecution intended to proceed under a “malice-in-law” theory. Under that theory, prosecutors argue evidence of Ortiz’s alleged abuse is not relevant to whether Esquivel violated Penal Code section 278. 

Summary of Esquivel and Umana’s Pending Cases

How The Custody Case Began 

The underlying family law case, Ventura County Superior Court No. D398547, began July 31, 2020, when Robert Ortiz Jr. filed a petition to establish parentage, custody and child support against Esquivel. The case was assigned to Judge John R. Smiley, with status conferences initially set for February 2021, July 2021 and January 2022.

Days later, Ortiz sought emergency ex parte relief rather than waiting for the normal schedule. In an Aug. 3, 2020, declaration, he asked the court to excuse notice to Esquivel, checking boxes stating that providing notice could result in violence and that Esquivel “will use physical harm against child.” He also asked the court to suspend Esquivel’s custody and visitation pending a hearing. The court granted the request for an ex parte hearing, which was held Aug. 5, 2020.

The only declaration supporting Ortiz’s emergency request came from a 19 year old girl identifying herself as Esquivel’s cousin. Family members indicate she was in an intimate relationship with Ortiz at the time she signed the declaration. She wrote that she had lived in the household for approximately two weeks and expressed concerns about Esquivel’s parenting, alleging Bane spent four to five hours a day alone in his room, had an inconsistent bedtime and was prevented from seeing his father. The declaration, however, did not describe or corroborate the allegations of violence or physical harm Ortiz cited as the basis for excusing notice to Esquivel.

At the Aug. 5 hearing before Judge Michael S. Lief, Ortiz appeared with counsel while Esquivel represented herself. After mediation failed to produce an agreement, the court declined Ortiz’s request to suspend Esquivel’s custody. Instead, the court ordered “no overnight visits with Father pending further order of the court,” restricting Ortiz’s parenting time rather than Esquivel’s, and set a three-hour evidentiary hearing on custody and visitation for Aug. 21, 2020.

Prior History of Abuse

A 2020 letter by Gina Cole, a licensed marriage and family therapist who supervised Esquivel during her graduate training at California Lutheran University from 2017 to 2018, describes what Cole characterizes as intimate partner violence by Ortiz during that period, including an October 30, 2018 incident in which a CLU student was allegedly threatened by Ortiz, prompting the university to request Oxnard Police patrols on campus. The letter was filed in the public family court record. In a phone interview, Cole confirmed to this reporter that she authored the letter, and said she was “completely shocked” to learn Ortiz now has full custody of Bane. 

Esquivel’s grandfather, Michael Burdin, describes an abusive and dangerous environment, including “attacks” against Esquivel by Ortiz’s mother that he says he witnessed during a 2018 stay in California — including an allegation that Ortiz’s mother threatened Esquivel with a knife.

Renewed Litigation In 2024

In January 2023, Ortiz filed a request to modify the March 2022 custody judgment, which had followed a 2021 trial and set Ortiz’s regular parenting time at alternating weekends and two weekday overnights. After a delayed mediation process — Esquivel’s counsel represented she was too ill to participate in June 2023 — the parties agreed to minor modifications to pickup times and no sparing (boxing) for the boy in July 2023. Ortiz sought a further increase in custodial time in a request heard the following year.

In a declaration filed May 31, 2024, opposing that request, Esquivel — then represented by attorney Davida Rosenthal, — laid out detailed allegations of abuse, including photos, predating the November withholding by several months. She wrote that Bane returned from visits with Ortiz with black eyes, busted lips, bruising, injuries and also scratches and bite marks she attributed to Ortiz’s 110-pound Cane Corso, and that Bane had described being picked up by the back of his pants in a manner she said caused pressure on his testicles.

The declaration states that in January 2024, Bane was attacked by the dog, taken to urgent care, She quoted Bane as saying, among other things, “My Dad and Papa call me a ‘sissy’ and make fun of me in front of other people,” and “I’m afraid my Dad will hurt you and take me away from you.” The court documents show the medical professional reported the incident to CPS.

None of these allegations were resolved at the June 4, 2024 hearing. Instead, before Judge Randy Rhodes, with Ortiz represented by Christina Shaffer and Esquivel by Rosenthal, the court ordered a 2-2-3 custody schedule, pending a 730 custody evaluation and appointed minor’s counsel Patricia Mann, deferring resolution of the allegations to that evaluation process rather than ruling on them directly. 

The parties subsequently stipulated to Dr. Albert R. Gibbs as the evaluator, appointed under Evidence Code section 730 and Family Code section 3111, following a July 8, 2024 letter from minor’s counsel Patricia Mann. The same letter documents a separate dispute over Esquivel unilaterally continuing sessions with a therapist, Marieme Woller, after the court had ordered that therapy discontinued. Court documents reveal the evaluation was repeatedly delayed and never conducted before the November withholding incident.

A Separate Restraining Order Dispute

Months before the withholding, a separate but related dispute produced its own civil case. On May 31, 2024, Ortiz and his family vacated a rented residence at 2441 Orangewood Place in Simi Valley — owned by Rosemary Lohman — and relocated to Wellstone Court, citing a black mold problem Ortiz attributed in part to Bane’s chronic illness while in his custody.

On June 1, 2024, Esquivel and her fiancé, Henry Umana, went to the vacated property to retrieve personal items Esquivel says Ortiz had been withhold from her and belonged to her late mother and to assess the mold, after Umana said they had exchanged messages with a neighbor about the property’s condition. Umana’s later sworn declaration states they purchased N95 masks in advance, found the garage door already ajar, called law enforcement before entering, and were told by responding officers that no action could be taken because any trespassing complaint would have to come from the property owner, not Ortiz, who no longer resided there. Umana’s declaration states that Ortiz and his father arrived at the property while he and Esquivel were inside and that he was “threatened with physical violence.”

On July 25, 2024, Ortiz filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Umana in Ventura County Superior Court, Case No. 2024CUHR027437, alleging Umana and Esquivel broke into the residence, damaged the garage door to gain entry, and posed a child-endangerment risk because their two toddlers were left in a vehicle during the incident. Umana’s response, filed under penalty of perjury, denied breaking and entering, denied any property damage, and stated that no law enforcement action had been initiated against him as of that filing. Following a contested hearing on

Oct. 10, 2024, before Judge Amy Van Sickle, the court granted a three-year civil harassment restraining order against Umana, protecting Ortiz, Ortiz’s mother, his father, and his minor daughter, with 100-yard stay-away and no-contact provisions set to expire October 10, 2026. This order was later used in the family law case to gain custody.

Nearly a year later, on July 3, 2025, Lohman — the property’s owner — signed a notarized affidavit, now part of the appellate record described below, stating that she personally authorized and ratified Umana and Esquivel’s entry to the property on June 1, 2024, that there was no breaking and entering, no property damage, and that nothing was removed from the premises.

Lohman’s affidavit states that Ortiz Sr. contacted her that same day and “intentionally provided false and misleading information” about the incident, and instructed her not to speak with Umana or Esquivel causing a delay in providing the declaration.

Lohman further states she was never contacted by law enforcement or the district attorney’s office regarding the matter despite having held the same phone number for over a decade, and that she “explicitly opposes” any legal action against Umana and Esquivel arising from the incident, separately describing extensive property damage and unpaid rent she attributes to Ortiz’s own tenancy.

The Good Cause Withholding: A Timeline

The following timeline covers the approximately three-month period during which Bane was withheld by Esquivel and reported missing to the Simi Valley Police Department by his father, Robert Ortiz. It is based on court records reviewed by this outlet.

Nov. 15, 2024: Esquivel filed a domestic violence restraining order petition in Los Angeles Superior Court’s North Valley District in Chatsworth (Case No. 24CHRO02438), the first of at least four protection requests she filed in four jurisdictions over the next three months, including petitions in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties, followed by a fourth filing in Vermont in February 2025.

The petition alleges escalating abuse and harassment, including claims that Ortiz sent associates to photograph Esquivel at her home and directed repeated late-night telephone calls to her and her fiancé through the Simi Valley and Lost Hills sheriff’s stations. It also alleges sexual abuse, including forced nude contact and degrading comments about her body.

Nov. 22, 2024: Orange County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Carasso denied Esquivel’s request for a temporary restraining order. In a 243-page petition filed in Orange County Superior Court (Case No. 24V002922), Esquivel submitted a sworn declaration describing what she alleges were years of escalating abuse. According to the filing, her son had previously disclosed some of those allegations to Child Protective Services, therapists, minors’ counsel, law enforcement and a medical professional.

The petition also alleges Ortiz threatened to kill her, claimed he was “untouchable” because he was a confidential law enforcement informant connected to a “murder for hire” investigation, repeatedly used racial and antisemitic slurs and other degrading language toward her, killed a family dog through starvation, and reached into a stroller to touch her infant twin daughters.

This outlet asked the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office whether it is aware of, or possesses any records concerning, Ortiz’s alleged status as a confidential informant or law enforcement asset for Los Angeles County agencies. As of publication, the office has declined to comment.

Judge Carasso’s notice of hearing states the temporary restraining order was denied pending a further hearing because the petition lacked sufficient detail regarding the most recent alleged incidents of abuse. In a separate handwritten notation, Carasso also questioned whether Orange County had jurisdiction:

“It appears there is already a case filed between parties in Ventura County. No indication court has jurisdiction of this matter… no indication events (recent) took place in Orange County or Bane is a resident of [the] county.”

Readers interested in Judge Carasso’s prior rulings can find additional reporting in this outlet’s Taran Nolan case series.

A CALL TO THE AUNT

LISTEN TO CALL WITH DA INVESTIGATOR,  IN ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON SUBSTACK 

November 25, 2024: Ventura County DA Investigator Tom Radwan called Esquivel’s aunt, April Larsen, seeking to locate Esquivel and Bane. A recording of the call — a more complete account than the characterization later offered in Radwan’s own memo filed into the criminal court record — captures the exchange directly.

Told that Bane was supposed to be with Ortiz, Larsen responded: “Yeah, which still baffles me, ‘cause the guy is a piece of work.” She continued:

Radwan told her a court hearing was set for the following morning and that Esquivel needed to either appear with Bane or make other arrangements to return him, or risk “serious trouble.”

Larsen pressed him directly:

Radwan did not answer the question. He told her he had been doing this work for roughly 13 years, that “everybody’s accusing everybody else,” and that he was “just kind of coming in at the end of the movie, trying to sort out the mess.”

When Larsen asked whether he had spoken to CPS himself, Radwan said he had to “trust that the judge knows what’s going on,” and that CPS and the courts had “already been involved in the case for, you know, probably years at this point” — without indicating he had reviewed that history himself.

Later in the call, Larsen challenged the premise of the process directly:

Radwan replied, “Well, I agree,” adding, “That’s why it’s a last resort.”

Asked about his own role, Radwan described himself as a fact-finder rather than a decision-maker: “I’m not a lawyer. I’m more like a detective. My job is to find her and make sure that, as of right now, that that child gets either to dad or shows up in court.”

Nov. 27, 2024: Esquivel filed a Domestic Violence Restraining Order petition in San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 24FDV05506C and it was granted and remained active until January 13, 2025.

Jan. 6, 2025: Radwan and McWaters called the aunt, April Larsen, a second time. Per Radwan’s statement filed into the criminal case record, Larsen told them she still had not heard from Esquivel or the child. Radwan’s declaration describes a 20-to-30-minute conversation in which Larsen alternated between acknowledging that Esquivel’s continued absence with the child was “not good” and questioning the decisions of the judge, social workers, and minor’s counsel in the case. Radwan “urged her to tell Esquivel, if she had the opportunity, to turn over Bane.”

LISTEN TO CALL WITH DA INVESTIGATOR,  IN ORIGINAL ARTICLE ON SUBSTACK 

Jan. 13, 2025: At a hearing before Judge Rebecca Zipp, Ortiz’s attorney, Christina Shaffer, declined to waive a defect in service of Esquivel’s domestic violence restraining order petition. The court also found that Esquivel’s out-of-state attorney had improperly served his application to appear in the case. Judge Zipp dismissed the restraining order request without prejudice for lack of service—a procedural ruling, not a decision on the merits of the abuse allegations—and the court record states the temporary restraining order expired by operation of law. A related hearing on firearms relinquishment involving Ortiz was dismissed on the same procedural grounds.

 

Court records show starting Nov. 23, investigators used Flock Safety technology, obtained sealed search warrants for Esquivel’s cellphone and email accounts, and sought surveillance footage from retailers as part of the investigation.

The extent of those investigative resources also raises a public policy question: Should comparable resources be deployed when parents report domestic violence, child abuse or credible threats to their safety before a crisis escalates?

Late January 2025, roughly ten days later: Ventura County DA investigators — Tom Radwan, Aimee Spriggs, and Laurel McWaters, working the Esquivel case under Case No. 2024030770 — began contacting the district attorney’s offices in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties to determine whether Esquivel had filed a Penal Code §278.7 “Good Cause” report during her son’s disappearance.

Under that statute, a parent has an affirmative defense to a child-stealing charge if they filed such a report and initiated a custody proceeding within statutory timeframes. All three counties came back negative: Los Angeles’ Child Abduction Unit (CAU) stated the name “does not appear this year or in last year’s records”; Orange County DA investigator Nate Ridlon and Sylvia Mendez confirmed “No GC”; San Diego confirmed the same through an investigator identified in internal notes as “David.”

That finding is distinct from an earlier Good Cause report Esquivel had filed in Ventura County in January 2024 — nearly a year before the withholding at issue in the current charge. That report, opened under Case No. 2024002925, led to a Simi Valley Police Department investigation (GO# 2024-3256) into bruising Esquivel reported on Bane’s chin and arms. The police department where Ortiz resides and has friends and students of his gym employed.

The responding officer interviewed then-five-year-old boy, who denied physical abuse when asked directly but also told the officer his father had asked him to tell his mother the bruise was from school rather than home. The department closed the case “unfounded” and forwarded it to Los Angeles County DCFS, which had an open referral on the child from another mandated reporter.

The record reviewed here does not indicate that the January 2025 Good Cause search was cross-referenced against Esquivel’s other protective filings from the same window — the Ventura, LA, San Diego DVROs or the Vermont filing — nor does it indicate if Ventura’s District Attorney’s office ever attempted to contact Esquivel directly to ask about her safety concerns during that period or filing a new Good Cause report.

A Good Cause report and a DVRO petition are legally distinct instruments — it’s not known if filing one satisfies the statutory requirements of the other — but the DVRO petition contains the same details and safety concerns a Good Cause report exists to capture, filed in the same window prosecutors cite as producing no Good Cause report, and were filled immediately after withholding and prior to the “Good Cause” search began.

This outlet’s reporting has established that the Ventura County DA’s Office was aware of all the DVRO petitions and including the Vermont Relief from Abuse filing GRANTED described below during the period at issue. Whether that knowledge was weighed against, or reconciled with, the Good Cause search’s negative finding is a question this outlet has put to the DA’s office directly, who has declined to comment on the case.

 

Feb. 12, 2025: Court records show Esquivel filed a relief from abuse complaint in Vermont’s Chittenden County Family Division (Case No. 25SB001239), referencing earlier allegations, including claims that Ortiz punched her while she was pregnant and that his mother threatened her with a knife. Judge Samual Hoar granted a temporary order the same day, and the court set a hearing for Feb. 20, 2025.

Feb. 13, 2025: According to Esquivel, while staying at a domestic violence shelter, she received reports that her fiancé and twin daughters were being harassed and was told by shelter staff that unidentified men were looking for her. Shelter staff then moved Esquivel and her son to a local hotel. Later that day, U.S. marshals took Esquivel and her son into custody at gunpoint. Her son was recovered in El Centro, California, one day after a Vermont court issued a temporary relief-from-abuse order.

Feb.18, 2025: In an email obtained by this outlet, South Burlington, Vermont Police Lieutenant Christopher Bataille wrote to Ortiz’s attorney, Christina Shaffer — regarding the Vermont case, now identified by case number, 25SB001239. Bataille wrote that he had spoken with the Family Court that afternoon and asked it to simply vacate the order, adding: “they were unwilling or unable to do so.”

He told Shaffer that if Ortiz made a virtual appearance at the hearing already scheduled for February 20, “it is likely this order will be fully vacated,” and recommended that Ortiz or his attorney appear. Bataille closed by writing: “It sounds as though this was quite an ordeal for your client, I am hopeful our officers were of assistance and that life becomes simpler for your client moving forward.”

What this documents, on the record, is a law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction that issued the protective order taking an active role in seeking to have that order against Ortiz vacated, and communicating directly with Ortiz’s attorney about how to accomplish that at the upcoming hearing — five days after the child at the center of the underlying custody dispute had already been recovered in California.

Taken together, the documented substance of the DA’s contact with the family during this period centers on locating the child and securing his return, not on investigating the specific allegations being raised to investigators in the course of that effort — a contrast this outlet has put directly to the Ventura County DA’s Office, along with the informant question above. This outlet submitted that request for comment to the DA’s office twice; who finally responded on July 23, “Due to this being an active case we cannot comment further. The next court date is set for July 31, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in courtroom 14.”

The Parallel Family Court Appeal 

Separate from the criminal prosecution, Esquivel is pursuing a related appeal before California’s Second District Court of Appeal, Division Six (Case No. B350999), arising from the same underlying custody dispute in Ventura County Superior Court (Case No. D398547).

Moving Forward

The Good Cause issue sits at the center of the prosecution’s malice-in-law theory: prosecutors argue that Esquivel’s failure to file a Good Cause report under Penal Code section 278.7 during the period her son was missing supports an inference of criminal intent. The record reviewed by this outlet, however, does not indicate whether investigators made comparable efforts to determine Esquivel’s or her son’s safety or to reconcile the absence of a Good Cause report with protective filings she made in other jurisdictions during the same period. This outlet posed those questions—along with questions about confidential informants and investigative procedures—to the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office.

The broader issues raised by this case extend beyond a single prosecution. Concerns about failures, inadequate oversight and misconduct within California’s child welfare and family court systems have become recurring themes in the 2026 statewide election cycle and have been echoed by lawmakers in California, Arizona and Idaho, the U.K. Parliament, and United Nations Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem, whose 2023 report to the Human Rights Council documented similar concerns internationally.

Against that backdrop, this reporting raises a broader question: When criminal prosecutions arise from family court and child welfare disputes, what independent steps should prosecutors take to verify information before charging a parent with a felony? This outlet also asked the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office how much public money has been spent investigating, locating, arresting and prosecuting Genevie Esquivel.

Related Coverage

Readers following the pattern of protective parents facing prosecution or sanctions after reporting abuse or withholding a child for safety reasons may also be interested in this outlet’s prior reporting on:

• Giselle Smiel: Abuser Held on $50K, Gets Diversion and 10-Year CPO — Later, Kids Refuse Visitation. Mom Gets Arrested, Charged With 5 Felonies, Held on $500K

• Tarn Nolan: OC Judge Kimberly Carasso’s Orders vs. Her Words, the Evidence, and the Law: What the Record Shows in Nolan v. Nolan

• Tawny Minna Grossman: UPDATE: Minor’s Counsel Tracy Willis Declares Conflict in Tawny Minna Grossman Case as Questions Grow Over OCDA Role in Family Court

• Joy Houghton: OCDA Jacobs, Faria, NBPD Fletcher, and OCSC Judge Waltz Strike Again: How Orange County Delivered Babies to a Convicted Abuser

• California Family Courts: Dr. Joan Meier Exposes Bias and Systemic Failures

This ongoing series on the California family and probate court and CPS corruption crisis—and the broader international family court crisis—aims to bring national attention to systemic failures and to advocate for meaningful reform and accountability.

This article is investigative reporting intended for public-information and public-interest purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and nothing herein should be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a licensed attorney or qualified legal professional. References to laws, court proceedings, or legal processes are presented for journalistic and informational purposes.

Julie M. Anderson-Holburn is a California-based investigative journalist reporting on criminal and family court corruption, judicial abuse, domestic violence, child abuse and systemic failures. Her work is published on NewsBreak, Substack, and The Family Court Circus, and has been featured by the Center for Judicial Excellence and National Safe Parents. Julie believes that exposing the truth is the first step toward meaningful reform.