Update: Giselle Smiel Filed a Good-Cause Report Under California Law — Seven Months Later, L.A. Prosecutors Charged Her With Kidnapping

August 17, 2026|Julie Holburn

Court and dispatch records reviewed by this publication show that the same Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, Rosa Alarcon, who, in December 2024, told Smiel her good-cause report was a family-court matter and declined to pursue a criminal report against her later signed the five-count felony complaint that led to her September 2025 arrest. Five law-enforcement officers were at the family’s San Marcos residence for hours after her arrest, repeatedly attempting to persuade the children to come outside, according to video reviewed by this publication. The children did not come out until approximately 1:49 a.m., when a neighbor helped persuade them to leave the residence. The complaint’s lead charge also appears to conflict with contemporaneous law-enforcement records, including the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department’s own dispatch records. The case comes as the California Commission on State Mandates considers, on Aug. 14, whether work evaluating a parent’s “good cause” defense under Penal Code Section 278.7 is reimbursable under the state’s Child Abduction and Recovery Program. Los Angeles County is seeking more than $10 million in reimbursement for work performed through LADA’s Child Abduction and Recovery Program, while reimbursement records reviewed for this investigation show little or no reimbursable work specifically attributable to evaluating Section 278.7 good-cause claims. There are 58 district attorney offices in California.

Updated August 16, 2026 at 2:05 P.M. This Article First Appeared on Julie M. Anderson-Holburn’s Substack

LOS ANGELES — Court records and law-enforcement documents reviewed for this article show that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office had information identifying Giselle Farias Smiel as a domestic-violence victim, had her San Marcos address in its records for years and received her November 2024 report invoking the good-cause protection provided under California Penal Code Section 278.7.

Seven months later, LADA charged Smiel in Los Angeles County Superior Court with five felonies, including kidnapping and child-custody offenses involving her children. Case No. 25CJCF03564-01 is before Judge Drew E. Edwards, with the next hearing scheduled for Aug. 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 127.

Smiel spent approximately 30 days in custody following her September 2025 arrest before posting a $100,000 surety bond. Bail had originally been set at $500,000.

Smiel has now gone nearly a year without seeing her children. The criminal protective order issued in the case contains no exception in Box No. 15 permitting contact or court-ordered visitation. An “X” and the word “None” are handwritten over Box No. 15. Smiel’s public defender has declined at least twice, in open court, to ask the court to revisit that provision.

Previous coverage on the GIselle Smiel case:

[READ: Abuser Held on $50K, Gets Diversion and 10-Year CPO — Later, Kids Refuse Visitation. Mom Gets Arrested, Charged With 5 Felonies, Held on $500K ; UPDATE: L.A. Prosecutors Admit Wrong DOB in People v. Giselle Smiel; Judge Denies Marsden Motion, § 995 Hearing Set Feb. 6, Bail Remains]

Ring videos are located in U.S. Marshals section below.

The records reviewed do not show that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office conducted a documented substantive evaluation of Smiel’s good-cause report. Months later, the deputy who had previously declined to pursue a criminal report against Smiel in December, Rosa Alarcon, citing the domestic-violence history, signed the five-count felony complaint charging her with kidnapping and child-custody offenses.

Count 1 of the complaint alleges that Smiel’s son was in Los Angeles County and was forcibly taken into San Diego County on May 1, 2025. Investigative and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department dispatch records reviewed for this article place the child at his San Marcos school — which he had attended since 2021 — on the morning of that date. The apparent discrepancy raises questions about the factual basis for the lead charge and the investigative steps taken before the complaint was filed.

That apparent discrepancy raises questions about the factual basis for the lead charge and the investigative steps taken before the complaint was filed.

The State-Level Funding Question Behind the Case

The case comes as the California Commission on State Mandates weighs whether work evaluating a parent’s good-cause defense under Penal Code section 278.7 is reimbursable under the state’s Child Abduction and Recovery Program.

In a June 12, 2026 decision on Sacramento County’s Incorrect Reduction Claim, the Commission held that good-cause evaluation is reimbursable as a matter of law, finding it embedded in the mandate to take “all actions necessary” under Family Code sections 3130–3131. Staff’s Proposed Decision in Los Angeles County’s parallel claim (seeking more than $10 million) recommended full approval of the county’s challenge to the Controller’s zeroing-out of its claim, including the exclusion of good-cause work. A hearing on the Los Angeles claim is set for Aug. 14.

Reimbursement records reviewed for this investigation show little or no work specifically attributed to evaluating section 278.7 claims relative to the overall program.

The Aug. 14, Commission on State Mandates public hearing concerns Los Angeles County’s Incorrect Reduction Claim No. 25-4237-1-05, challenging the state’s audit and reduction of reimbursement claimed for the LADA Child Abduction and Recovery Program. The claim identifies the County of Los Angeles as the claimant, with Oscar Valdez, the county’s auditor-controller, listed as the authorized official.

The distinction matters: Los Angeles County is the claimant before the Commission, while the disputed reimbursement concerns work performed through the LADA’s Child Abduction and Recovery Unit.

The Commission’s CSM-4237 matter traces the mandate to a 1979 test-claim decision and includes a current request to amend the parameters and guidelines governing reimbursable activities. A Los Angeles County incorrect-reduction claim specifically raises whether activities associated with evaluating “good cause” under Penal Code Section 278.7 are reimbursable

Commission staff have concluded that the State Controller’s position that costs associated with Section 278.7 good-cause cases were not reimbursable was incorrect as a matter of law. The staff analysis states that the good-cause provisions help define the scope of the child-abduction mandate and addresses whether activities related to those cases fall within reimbursable enforcement work. The Commission’s proceedings therefore raise a question that extends beyond reimbursement: If evaluating a parent’s good-cause defense is part of determining whether a child-abduction prosecution can properly proceed, what happens when that evaluation is not documented or does not occur?

Smiel’s case is just one of many that provides a concrete example for examining that question.

[READ: OCDA Ignores Good Cause Law, Family Court Violates Due Process in Tawny Minna Grossman Case;

UPDATE: Orange County Mother Seeks Removal of Minor’s Counsel Tracy Willis, Alleging Coordination with OCDA Prosecutor Tamara Jacobs;

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

From Criminal Convictions to Parental Alienation Claims to the UK Hague Court: The Nicely-Castro Case Raises Questions About Orange County Family Court, the OCDA and California Child-Safety Laws;

JUDGED, SILENCED, SEPARATED: Inside Orange County’s Family Court Crisis;

Child-Abduction Units Spent Thousands of Hours and Tens of Millions Recovering Children. “Good Cause” Defense Work Got Minutes a Week — and Audits Called It Non-Reimbursable]

This publication is not asserting that Jeff Smiel knowingly filed a false report, that the Oct. 23, 2024, custody reversal order was legally void or that an earlier criminal protective order termination was legally ineffective. The documents reviewed do, however, raise questions about victim safety, notice, due process, prosecutorial review, the handling of good-cause claims, the potential role of reimbursement or other financial incentives, and the factual basis for the charges.

This publication has put those questions directly to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, the Commission on State Mandates and the State Controller’s Office. This article will be updated with their responses, if received.

This is Part One of a five-part series examining California cases that, according to records reviewed and interviews conducted by this publication, raise questions about recurring tactics, procedural practices and outcomes affecting mothers and children.

A History of Domestic Violence and Protective Orders

Following a July 1, 2020, incident, Giselle Smiel obtained an emergency protective order against Jeff Smiel. A pretrial criminal protective order (CPO) followed Aug. 25, 2020, in Santa Clarita, in Jeff Smiel’s criminal case, Case No. NEWOSC02764-01. Judges Randy Rhodes, Gary Micon, Martin R. Gladstein and Daviann L. Mitchell presided over proceedings in that case. The order protected Smiel and the couple’s daughter.

Formal custody orders followed via juvenile court in 2021. The criminal court later replaced the CPO with a new criminal protective order issued Feb. 14, 2023, with an expiration date of Feb. 14, 2033.

In a May 10, 2023, victim-impact statement submitted directly to LADA personnel — including Deputy District Attorneys Tannaz Mokayef and Natalie Weingrow, with Nadine Teter copied — Smiel described the July 2020 incident and alleged that Jeff Smiel “became violent towards me and our children” and attempted to suffocate her.

The document is significant for another reason: It placed Smiel’s San Marcos address, email address and telephone number in LADA’s files nearly 18 months before she submitted the good-cause report described below.

On May 22, 2024, after Jeff Smiel completed a court-ordered domestic-violence counseling program, the court dismissed the underlying misdemeanor charge under Penal Code Section 273.5(a), pursuant to Penal Code Section 1385, and terminated the protective order the same day, approximately 15 months after it was issued. The dismissal itself and the termination of the CPO are legally distinct acts. Communications say she was not notified before the hearing.

LADA Failed to Notify Smiel Before Terminating Her Protective Order

Documents reviewed by this publication indicate that LADA did not notify Smiel before the May 22, 2024, hearing that terminated the criminal protective order protecting her and her daughter.

In a June 25, 2024, email, LADA employee Tannaz Mokayef acknowledged:

“Our office should have sent you a copy — but I have now sent to you an electronic copy.”

Mokayef also wrote that Smiel “should have been mailed a copy” of the termination order.

Smiel responded that LADA already had her address, email address and telephone number on file and disputed the office’s characterization of her attendance at prior proceedings.

Records requests to date have not produced proof of service showing when, or whether, LADA sent notice before the termination hearing. Outstanding records include the date notice was sent, the address used, the method of service, delivery confirmation, victim-notification database entries and the termination minute order.

A Known San Marcos Residence — and a Multi-Agency Recovery Operation

Smiel’s filings state that she and the children remained at the same San Marcos residence from approximately 2020 until her arrest in September 2025.

The residence was 639 South Twin Oaks Valley Road, Apartment 170, San Marcos, California 92078. The address is no longer Smiel’s current residence. She was arrested in September 2025 and now resides elsewhere. Its significance to this investigation is not her present location, but the prosecution’s characterization of her whereabouts and the family’s location before her arrest.

LADA had the San Marcos address in its files at least as early as Smiel’s May 2023 victim-impact statement. The same home city appeared in 2021 juvenile-court records, and the address appeared in family-court mailing records in 2022.

A December 2021 juvenile-court transcript and custody order in the children’s juvenile case, Case No. 20CCJP03858A-B, presided over by Judge Stacy Wiese, identified Giselle as the children’s primary residential parent, awarded her sole physical custody and provided Jeff Smiel with unmonitored visitation in San Diego County, with exchanges directed through the San Marcos Police Station.

The records describe a family living openly in San Diego County under a custody arrangement that placed the children primarily with Giselle — not a family whose location was unknown to authorities.

The U.S. Marshals Operation

The U.S. Marshals Service report provides another piece of the timeline. According to the report, LADA investigator Ruby Kazmirski asked federal authorities to locate and recover the children and arrest Giselle Smiel. The report identifies the San Marcos apartment as the suspected location where the children and Smiel could be found.

On Sept. 4, 2025, U.S. Marshals arrested Smiel outside the residence. The children remained inside the apartment after her arrest and were recovered at approximately 1:49 a.m. Sept. 5, according to video and records reviewed by this publication. They were transported to emergency shelter care at the Polinsky Children’s Center, where they remained through the weekend.

Video records obtained by this publication provide additional documentation of the recovery operation.

Ring-camera and other video recorded at the San Marcos residence show law-enforcement personnel repeatedly attempting to persuade the children to come to the door after Smiel was arrested.

In all the recordings, an officer appears to be holding Smiel’s keys.

The efforts continued into the early morning hours of Sept. 5. At approximately 1:49 a.m., a neighbor persuaded the children to come outside.

Video recorded by a source during the Sept. 4, 2025, recovery operation captures Jeff Smiel addressing LADA investigator Ruby Kazmirski making statements about obtaining his children and coming after her. The video is embedded below.

The U.S. Marshals report repeats the prosecution’s characterization of the children as missing or kidnapped. It does not discuss Smiel’s November 2024 Section 278.7 good-cause report, the reported domestic-violence history, the prior juvenile-court custody findings or whether the children were interviewed before their removal.

The report establishes what federal authorities were asked to do, where investigators believed the family was located and what occurred during the Sept. 4 recovery operation. It does not independently establish that the children were legally kidnapped, that Smiel violated the operative custody order, that Jeff Smiel’s missing-person report was knowingly false or that the authorities’ legal conclusions were correct.

What the records and video do document is an organized, multi-agency recovery and arrest operation directed at a specific San Marcos residence known to authorities — not an operation in which investigators had no information about where Smiel or the children could be found.

That distinction is significant when evaluating later allegations that Smiel was missing, that her whereabouts were unknown or that authorities could not locate the children.

The Road to the October 2024 Custody Flip

In July 2023, Judge Richard Bloom, who was assigned to the family-law case, Case No. 20CHFL01588. Bloom modified the July 17, 2022 order that had provided for visitation every other weekend in San Marcos, with no overnight stays.. The new custody order to require Smiel to drive the children to Santa Clarita every Saturday morning for daytime visitation with Jeff Smiel. He was ordered to return the kids to San Marcos Saturday night— a round trip of approximately 300 miles. The step up plan extended to a Sunday return.

By July 2024, Jeff Smiel owed more than $200,000 in past-due child support, according to court records reviewed by this publication.

Beginning that month, Smiel sent Jeff Smiel a series of written notices through the TalkingParents platform stating that she could not afford the weekly drive, citing the distance, financial hardship and the outstanding support arrears.

His replies largely consisted of single-word entries marking missed visits as “documented,” along with messages disputing her account of the arrears. In one message, he wrote that he would “hate to be in your shoes next month criminal.”

Records reviewed for this article do not show Jeff Smiel offering to make the drive to retrieve the children himself during this exchange.

On July 12, 2024, Smiel filed a request for order in the family-law case. She asked the court to suspend the every-weekend Santa Clarita visitation schedule “due to immediate harm,” restore the Aug. 17, 2022, order providing every-other-weekend, no-overnight visitation in San Marcos, and issue a temporary restraining order barring Jeff Smiel’s fiancée, Margela Martinez, from contact with the children, citing ongoing domestic violence.

She also asked the court to require Jeff Smiel to resume use of a Soberlink alcohol-monitoring device during visits; pay $25,000 in overdue child and spousal support within three days, with a $100-per-day penalty for late payment; award her $21,000 in attorney’s fees for alleged violations of court orders; and impose $100,000 in sanctions for what the filing described as significant and prolonged emotional, physical and financial stress.

Jeff Smiel filed his own request for order Aug. 1, 2024, seeking to modify custody and visitation.

The October 23 Custody Reversal

On Oct. 23, 2024, Commissioner Kendra Thomas heard Jeff Smiel’s Aug. 1 request first.

The operative minute order states that Jeff Smiel appeared with counsel and testified and separately states: “There are no appearances by or for the Petitioner this date.”

The court found a material change of circumstances, awarded Jeff Smiel temporary sole legal and physical custody, ordered that Giselle have no visitation and ordered the children into counseling under Family Code Section 3190. The court set a Nov. 27 review hearing concerning Smiel’s monitored visitation.

A second minute order, also dated Oct. 23, addressed Smiel’s July 12 request. That order initially recorded Smiel as present, stated that the court had received no communication from her, noted that she had missed a Sept. 17 mediation appointment and denied her request in full.

A Nov. 6, 2024, nunc pro tunc order later corrected the record, striking the notation that Smiel had appeared and reflecting no appearance by or for her on either matter that day.

Smiel filed requests for order seekIng a reconsideration and supporting declarations Oct. 28 and Oct. 30, attaching medical records concerning her son.

Those records include a TrueCare note showing that her son was examined by Dr. Akash Rajaratnam on Oct. 23, 2024. The note excused him from school for four days and cleared him to return Oct. 28. The medical records also list new prescriptions associated with a viral infection, acute sinusitis and wheezing.

Exhibit B also includes an email Smiel sent Jeff Smiel’s attorney, Robert N. Greenberg, at 2:43 a.m. on Oct. 23 — hours before the hearing — stating:

“[Our son] is very sick. Taking him to the doctor. Unable to attend court.”

Smiel’s subsequent filing stated that she could not attend the hearing because she was taking her son to the doctor that morning. The medical records independently document the child’s Oct. 23 appointment.

Her filing further argued that the court failed to address the domestic-violence presumption under Family Code Section 3044, emergency custody standards under Family Code Section 3064 and live-testimony requirements under Family Code Section 217.

Commissioner Thomas denied reconsideration.

This publication is not asserting that the Oct. 23 custody order was legally void. The records establish that Smiel notified Jeff Smiel’s attorney of the child’s medical emergency hours before the hearing.

What remains unresolved is whether Greenberg conveyed that notice to the court before or during the hearing and, if not, why; what evidence supported the changed-circumstances finding; whether the court considered the prior domestic-violence record and safety concerns raised in Smiel’s July 12 filing; and whether the required Section 3044 seven factor findings, were made on the record.

Smiel Filed a Good-Cause Report. LADA Said It Was a Family Court Matter.

On Nov. 1, 2024, Smiel submitted a formal Penal Code Section 278.7 good-cause notification to LADA.

She identified Jeff Smiel as a domestic-violence abuser, cited his criminal case and private-aviation background as a flight-risk concern and raised child-safety concerns based on the history described above. She identified the family’s established San Marcos residence and copied the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office.

Three days later, Assistant Head Deputy Rosa Alarcon of LADA’s Target Crimes Division and Child Abduction responded in writing:

“We do not handle family court matters. Please advise what assistance you are looking for.”

Smiel replied Nov. 7, clarifying that she was seeking a statutory good-cause and flight-risk review — not family-court intervention — and again described the domestic-violence history and related proceedings.

Records reviewed for this article do not show that LADA opened a documented substantive good-cause review, referred the report to a child-abduction or family-violence unit, interviewed the children, evaluated the prior protective-order or juvenile-court records, or issued a written determination under Section 278.7.

Section 278.7 recognizes circumstances in which a parent may lawfully withhold a child based on a good-faith, reasonable belief that withholding is necessary to protect the child from bodily injury, emotional harm or domestic violence, subject to statutory requirements.

The statute does not require prosecutors to accept every assertion of good cause. But where a parent invokes Section 278.7, the claimed circumstances are legally relevant to whether the parent’s conduct falls within California’s child-abduction laws.

The unresolved question is whether LADA evaluated Smiel’s report at all before later treating the underlying custody dispute as criminal withholding.

The Same LADA Declined to Pursue the Report — Then Charged Smiel

On Dec. 11, 2024, Jeff Smiel filed a report with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s Santa Clarita Station alleging child concealment under Penal Code Section 278.5(a) and citing what he described as a valid order under Family Code Section 3130.

According to an April 28, 2025 sworn declaration by LADA Senior Investigator Ruby Kazmirski, Assistant Head Deputy Rosa Alarcon declined to pursue the December report criminally. Kazmirski wrote that Alarcon cited prior domestic-violence allegations made by Giselle Smiel against Jeff Smiel that had been “corroborated by” the couple’s daughter. According to Kazmirski’s account, Alarcon directed that the matter proceed through family court under the Section 3130 order.

That detail matters because the same LADA office later prosecuted Giselle.

A second report was filed by Jeff Smiel on March 3, 2025. A CLETS entry subsequently identified the children as allegedly abducted by Giselle and directed officers to contact LADA and take the children into protective custody if located. The entry listed Giselle’s date of birth as March 10, 1976, matching the date in her November 2024 good-cause report and May 2023 victim-impact statement.

A Warrant Request Built on a Series of Errors

On April 28, 2025, Kazmirski submitted a sworn declaration and proposed protective-custody warrant in the family-law case, asking the court to authorize law enforcement to physically retrieve the children. The declaration requested authority to use force to enter the residence if investigators exhausted reasonable, non-forcible means of gaining entry.

Kazmirski wrote that, based on her investigation, she believed Giselle had “knowingly and wrongfully withheld” the children from their father. She also characterized the circumstances as consistent with what she described as common practices of parental abductors, including limiting contact between children and the left-behind parent.

But the declaration contains multiple apparent factual and identifying errors.

For example, the warrant identifies Jeff Smiel by the surname Smith, and contains an incorrect date of birth for one of the children. Kazmirski’s declaration also states that the December 2024 incident resulted in “G. Smiel’s arrest.” The chronology described elsewhere in the declaration, however, concerns Jeff Smiel’s prior criminal case and arrest, followed by Alarcon’s decision not to pursue his December 2024 report against Giselle criminally.

The warrant was signed by Judge Michelle Short, according to the document reviewed by this publication.

The errors matter because the declaration was not merely an internal investigative note. Kazmirski submitted it under penalty of perjury in support of a request for judicial authority to remove two children from their home and, if necessary, permit law enforcement to forcibly enter the residence.

What Kazmirski’s Investigation Found — and What It Did Not Address

Kazmirski’s declaration describes investigators visiting the children’s schools in March 2025. According to the declaration, school personnel told the investigator that both children had expressed that they did not want to go with their father. During one encounter, investigators attempted to contact the son, who allegedly said he did not want to go to his father and ran and hid.

Kazmirski also described visiting Jeff Smiel’s residence and assessing the children’s living arrangements. According to her declaration, one bedroom was so small that it could accommodate only a twin bed, with no other furniture, and there was no separate bedroom available for the second child.

The declaration ultimately states:

“Based on the information obtained through this investigation, I believe G. Smiel has knowingly and wrongfully withheld [daughter] and [son] from J. Smiel even after being directed by the court and myself to comply.”

Kazmirski then requested a protective-custody warrant, writing that it was necessary to safely recover the children and prevent further concealment or potential flight to another jurisdiction. She also sought authority for law enforcement to make a forcible entry if Giselle or another resident refused permission to enter.

The declaration, however, does not appear to address several issues central to the later criminal prosecution: Smiel’s November 2024 Section 278.7 good-cause report, the statutory good-cause protection she invoked, the full history of the prior domestic-violence proceedings, or the December decision by Alarcon not to criminally pursue Jeff Smiel’s report because of those allegations.

That omission raises an important question: Was the information that caused LADA to decline the December 2024 report fully considered when the agency later sought a protective-custody warrant and ultimately charged Giselle with five felonies?

From a Civil Matter to a Five-Count Felony Prosecution

On June 18, 2025, Alarcon signed the five-count felony complaint against Giselle on behalf of District Attorney Nathan Hochman, charging her with kidnapping and four child-custody-related offenses.

The sequence raises a documentary question that this publication has put directly to LADA:

What changed between the December 2024 decision not to pursue Jeff Smiel’s report criminally and the June 2025 felony complaint — and did LADA review Smiel’s November 2024 good-cause report, the prior domestic-violence record, the children’s statements to school personnel and the family’s documented San Marcos residence before making that charging decision?

The 2025 Criminal Case: The Charging Document Conflicts With the Sheriff’s Own Records

Count 1 of the felony complaint alleges that on Thursday, May 1, 2025, Smiel “did unlawfully, forcibly and by instilling fear, steal, take, hold, detain and arrest” her son in Los Angeles County and take him into San Diego County, in violation of Penal Code Section 207(a).

But records obtained by this publication raise questions about where the child was that morning.

A San Diego County Sheriff’s Department computer-aided dispatch (CAD) chronology obtained through a California Public Records Act request shows deputies arriving at Double Peak Middle School in San Marcos at 8:54 a.m. May 1, with activity at the school continuing through 11:26 a.m. School records reviewed for this article show the children had been enrolled in San Marcos schools since at least January 2021.

This publication also obtained video showing LADA Senior Investigator Ruby Kazmirski at the school with law enforcement personnel.

At an Oct. 6, 2025, hearing that this reporter attended, Kazmirski testified about the events surrounding the child’s recovery. The hearing transcript, reviewed by this publication, includes testimony concerning the child’s presence at the San Marcos school and his interaction with investigators there.

The records reviewed do not place the child in Los Angeles County on May 1 before the alleged kidnapping described in Count 1. Instead, they place him at his San Marcos school during the same period in which the complaint alleges he was forcibly taken from Los Angeles County.

That discrepancy does not, by itself, resolve every element of a Penal Code Section 207 charge. It does, however, raise a significant factual question about the geographic allegation underlying the lead kidnapping count — particularly because the charging document alleges that the child was taken from Los Angeles County while contemporaneous law-enforcement records place him in San Marcos.

The discrepancy is also significant because LADA had access to records identifying the family’s longstanding San Marcos location before the criminal case was filed.

The relevant question is therefore what law enforcement knew about the family’s location before and during the investigation that resulted in the kidnapping charges.

LADA had Smiel’s San Marcos address in its records years before Smiel’s September 2025 arrest. Her May 2023 victim-impact statement included the address, while other criminal, juvenile and family-court records identified the same San Marcos residence and documented the family’s history of domestic-violence proceedings.

Two Marsden Motions and a 995 Motion

A Marsden proceeding concerns a defendant’s request to replace appointed counsel.

At a Dec. 19, 2025, hearing, Smiel requested new counsel under People v. Marsden, 2 Cal. 3d 118 (1970). The court denied the request and kept Deputy Public Defender Jessica Schibler on the case.

At the July 28, 2026, hearing, Smiel asked Schibler, in open court and before Judge Drew E. Edwards, to ask the court to revisit the criminal protective order’s no-contact terms, specifically Box No. 15, so that Smiel could pursue some form of visitation with her children.

Schibler declined to make that request and instead raised a Marsden issue. The court denied the Marsden motion.

Smiel’s defense had also filed a motion under Penal Code Section 995 challenging the felony case. After repeated continuances, the court denied the Section 995 motion on July 28.

Diversion Was Pursued Before Discovery Was Produced

Beginning in approximately May 2026, according to court records, hearing observations and communications reviewed by this publication, the Public Defender’s Office pressed Smiel to consider a diversion agreement.

At the same time, Smiel repeatedly requested discovery in the case.

As of the July 28 hearing, the records reviewed by this publication did not show that the defense had provided her with the discovery she had repeatedly requested. Following that hearing, Smiel met with Head Deputy Public Defender Lisa Roth to raise concerns about her representation and the lack of discovery.

On Aug. 4, Schibler confirmed by email that discovery would be produced at the next hearing, scheduled for Aug. 27, and said she needed to “place it on the record.”

The timing raises another question for the court: How was Smiel expected to meaningfully evaluate a diversion proposal or assist in her defense while she was still seeking discovery concerning the evidence underlying the five felony charges?

Why This Sequence Matters Now

This outlet’s Aug. 7, 2026, reporting on California’s Child Abduction and Recovery Program documented a structural funding issue dating to 1996. State reimbursement covers qualifying work performed by county district attorneys’ offices to locate and recover children under Penal Code sections 278 and 278.5, while work specifically evaluating whether a parent’s withholding qualifies for the statutory good-cause protection under Section 278.7 has been treated as non-reimbursable.

State Controller’s Office audits reviewed county claims for work involving the investigation of alleged withholding, enforcement of custody and visitation orders, locating and recovering children, coordinating recoveries and appearing in court. The records show substantial reimbursement activity on the enforcement and recovery side, while district attorneys’ offices reported spending only approximately 8 to 16 hours annually on good-cause evaluation work.

Riverside County’s district attorney’s office told auditors that good-cause statements are “inextricably intertwined” with child-abduction duties because prosecutors cannot determine whether to pursue a child-abduction case without first determining whether a parent acted with a good-faith, reasonable belief that a child was in danger.

That creates a significant institutional question: If the state reimburses substantial enforcement and recovery work while the statutory evaluation that may determine whether criminal enforcement is appropriate is treated as non-reimbursable, are prosecutors given the same institutional incentive to investigate both sides of the statutory equation?

The issue is now before the California Commission on State Mandates.

The commission’s Aug. 14, 2026, public hearing concerns Los Angeles County’s Incorrect Reduction Claim No. 25-4237-1-05, challenging the state’s reduction of reimbursement claimed for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office’s Child Abduction and Recovery Program. The claim identifies the County of Los Angeles as the claimant, with Oscar Valdez, the county’s auditor-controller, listed as the authorized official. Los Angeles County is seeking more than $10 million in reimbursement for work performed through LADA’s program.

A commission Draft Proposed Decision would reverse the State Controller’s treatment of Section 278.7 good-cause evaluation work as non-reimbursable, finding the exclusion “incorrect as a matter of law.”

The funding dispute does not establish that reimbursement considerations caused LADA to charge Smiel, and this publication is not making that claim. The audits and proposed decision establish a reimbursement structure; they do not, by themselves, establish an improper financial motive.

But Smiel’s case provides a concrete example of why the underlying policy question matters.

She filed the good-cause report contemplated by Section 278.7.

LADA responded that it did not handle family-court matters.

The same office later received a criminal report from Jeff Smiel and, according to LADA records cited in the April 2025 declaration, initially declined to pursue that report criminally after considering the prior domestic-violence allegations.

Months later, LADA charged Giselle Smiel with five felonies.

The records reviewed for this article do not establish why that assessment changed, whether prosecutors substantively evaluated Smiel’s November 2024 good-cause report before the charges were filed, or whether the statutory good-cause protection received the same investigative attention as the alleged child-abduction conduct.

Those are questions this publication has put directly to LADA.

The issue is not whether every good-cause claim should prevent prosecution. The issue is whether the statutory safeguard was meaningfully evaluated before criminal enforcement began.

Moving Forward

The next hearing is scheduled for Aug. 27, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 127 and the public is encouraged to attend.

This publication has submitted a California Public Records Act request and requests for comment to LADA and the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office concerning the good-cause report, the December 2024 criminal report, the June 2025 charging decision, the May 1 location allegation, the Oct. 23, 2024 custody proceeding, the termination of the criminal protective order and the evidence underlying the five felony counts.

The requests also ask LADA to explain whether and how prosecutors evaluated the Section 278.7 good-cause issue before pursuing criminal charges.

Any substantive response received before publication or afterward will be added to this report.

This ongoing series on the California family and probate court and CPS corruption crisis—and the broader nationwide 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.

Whistleblowers and victims of family court, CPS, probate court, IDEA/ADA or foster care corruption anywhere in the U.S.—please contact this reporter at juliea005@proton.me or rjh.investigative.reports@gmail.com.

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.

Thank you.

Related coverage: