By Susan Bassi, Fred Johnson and Lexi Logan
Moments before a child custody hearing was set to begin, two women entered Santa Clara County Superior Court Department 65, Judge Cindy Hendrickson’s courtroom, and served a judicial disqualification motion with a copy to divorce attorney Nicole Ford. The motion alleged political bias, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and judicial misconduct surrounding the Judge’s participation with the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council and nonprofit WomenSV.
Then, at the request of divorce attorney Nicole Ford, Judge Hendrickson ordered the women removed from the public courtroom. Without explanation, without documentation, without legal justification and without notice to the opposing party, the women were escorted out of the courtroom by a Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputy.
As one of the women approached the court exit, she turned and stated, “Cindy Hendrickson, you are violating our civil rights.” Minutes later, she and her companion were speaking to reporters outside the courthouse, publicly condemning what they described as First Amendment retaliation and the public right to access and observe court proceedings.
A Judge Under Fire
The motion to disqualify Judge Hendrickson alleged a pattern of bias in favor of the child’s mother, driven by the judge’s undisclosed connections to Nicole Ford and the nonprofit WomenSV—a controversial domestic violence organization long suspected of political patronage and backdoor dealings in Silicon Valley’s family courts as previously exposed.
According to the disqualification motion, Hendrickson failed to disclose prior affiliations with both Nicole Ford and WomenSV, before presiding over a custody case that ultimately stripped a father of his parenting rights. Under Judge Hendrickson’s orders, the father was placed on professional supervised visitation, at a staggering cost of $1,000 per week, where his time with his young son was limited to brief encounters in public spaces such as bookstores and shopping malls.
Adding to the disquietude, the disqualification motion claimed that the mother dodged felony child abuse charges—charges reportedly referred by Campbell Police to the Santa Clara County District Attorney, due to her close relationship with Deputy District Attorney Olivia Mendoza. Evidence of the relationship between the mother and attorney Mendoza included Facebook posts and Venmo transactions indicating personal and financial connections between the mother and the prosecutor.
In late 2023, the young child’s mother was subjected to an emergency protective order (EPO) requested by Campbell Police, who referred the matter to the county’s Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) where the child was reportedly interviewed. The father was then referred to the family court where he was denied a temporary domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) in early 2024 as the court struggled with jurisdiction based on a parentage case previously filed in San Diego County.
By stipulation (agreement) of the child’s parents, represented by out-of-area attorneys, a previously contested child custody (parentage) case in San Diego was moved to Santa Clara and consolidated with the DVRO matter. Once the temporary DVRO was denied, the case was assigned to Judge Cindy Hendrickson.
Shortly thereafter, the mother replaced her San Diego based attorneys with Nicole Ford who had a long-standing relationship with Cindy Hendrickson through appointment to the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council (DVC) and association through nonprofit WomenSV.
Photos online of Cindy Hendrickson (left) attending and speaking at a DVC sponsored Conference as Nicole Ford (not photographed) acted as DVC chair in planning the 2022 Conference.
The case became one of the first known domestic violence cases consolidated with a child custody made public due to changes in California law effective January 1, 2023. The law now makes California child custody disputes involving unwed parents just as accessible to the public as cases involving married parents.
According to court documents in San Diego, and arrest records from the Chula Vista Police Department, Ford’s client allegedly has a long history of domestic violence and violation of court orders. Ford has publicly claimed to support survivors of abuse. Her critics complain she has profited from protecting abusive parents while appointed to the county DVC.
Missing Minutes, Missing Justice
Judge Hendrickson’s February 7 courtroom eviction was never recorded in the official court minutes. Neither the courtroom clerk nor the private court reporter, Talty & Associates, documented the judge’s order to remove observers from a public proceeding.
Even the father, who filed the motion, and his legal team were not notified that his courtroom advocate and supporters were expelled.
Four days later, on Feb. 11, Hendrickson responded to the allegations set forth in the disqualification motion, downplaying her ties to WomenSV by stating that, aside from her husband donating a painting to the group, she had no direct involvement.
In her answer, Judge Hendrickson failed to address the allegation of failing to disclose her co-appointment with Ford to the county’s Domestic Violence Council (DVC). A local government body that has made major funding recommendations to county supervisors who provided a $250,000 grant to WomenSV in 2021, while other nonprofits claiming to offer domestic violence support services, received as little as $10,000.
A Pattern of Concealed Ties
Public records and whistleblower interviews tell a different story than the one in Judge Hendrickson’s answer.
Hendrickson, a former Santa Clara County prosecutor, ascended to the bench after the 2018 recall of Judge Aaron Persky. Records obtained in 2019 show that, while employed as a deputy DA, Hendrickson improperly accessed hundreds of county records to aid Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber’s campaign to oust Persky. A move that secured Hendrickson an endorsement and, ultimately, a seat on the family court bench.
According to a 2023 interview with “Jane Doe 1,” WomenSV founder, Ruth Patrick, actively promoted Hendrickson’s campaign from within the nonprofit. Doe1 recounted how Patrick told nonprofit clients and donors that Hendrickson would become a judge and “help women escape abusive relationships.”
Social media evidence reveals that Hendrickson accepted an award from WomenSV prior to the 2018 election. After becoming a judge, she received an award from the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council (DVC), as she continued to promote WomenSV affiliated attorneys on her social media platforms, including minor’s counsel appointees, some of whom, including Dennis Ingols and Nicole Ford, were not even on the county-approved minors counsel panel.
As a judge, Cindy Hendrickson was reappointed to the DVC, she approved private and publicly funded payments to minors counsel, attorneys who had supported her political campaign.
In 2022, Judge Hendrickson was publicly admonished by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for failing to properly disclose financial donations during her election campaign. A time overlapping with her WomenSV award and political endorsements.
Whistleblower Silenced
Jane Doe1, a longtime WomenSV client and central figure in the nonprofit’s eventual defunding by Los Altos city leaders and police, was one of Hendrickson’s most vocal critics.
In a 2023 interview, she described Hendrickson’s assignment to her divorce case as a betrayal and gross conflict of interest. “She claimed she’d make the courts better for women. Instead, she turned it into a nightmare for all of us. She was just another lying Silicon Valley politician.” Doe1 said.
After Hendrickson took over Doe1’s divorce case, Ruth Patrick, founder of WomenSV, ceased appearing in court as Doe1’s “advocate”, something she had done for many hearings until then. Soon after, Hendrickson sanctioned Doe1, ordering her to pay over $40,000 in combined legal fees to the attorneys for her ex-husband (Hoover Krepelka) and his girlfriend’s attorneys (Lonich Patton Ehrlich Policastri).
Jim Hoover, Managing Partner at Hoover Krepelka joined the WomenSV advisory board as the firm represented Doe1’s former husband. At about the same time, Doe1, at the urging of Ruth Patrick, was represented by Michael Bennetto of the Hoge Fenton law firm. The firm that had represented Ruth Patrick in her own divorce shortly before she launched WomenSV in 2015.
Judge Hendrickson never made any disclosures with respect to her involvement with WomenSV or the DVC at the time she was assigned Doe 1’s divorce case.
Jane Doe1’s Death, and a Case Left Pending
Jane Doe 1 died just days after the San Mateo County Supervisors, at the urging of county DVC members who include WomenSV advisory member Jessica Dayton, voted to dissolve the council and restructure it. The proposed restructuring is vague with respect to future compliance with Brown Act obligations for transparency.
At the time of her death, Doe 1 was anticipating the outcome of the decision of the disqualification motion of Judge Hendrickson, since she did not have the facts available to her regarding Judge Hendrickson’s activities while her case was proceeding.
Before her death, Doe1 repeatedly blamed Judge Hendrickson’s undisclosed conflicts, and association with WomenSV, as well as a string of WomenSV referred attorneys who failed her for trapping her in family court for over a decade.
In the year leading up to her death, she had filed a malpractice lawsuit against Michael Benetto and the Hoge Fenton law firm, and was looking forward to publicly exposing what WomenSV, and the attorneys they referred her to, had done to her over the last decade of her life.
The ultimate decision with respect to the disqualification motion was assigned to Judge Johnathan Karesh, a judge in San Mateo County, where WomenSV had also had tremendous influence according to Doe1 interviews.
Judge Karesh issued an order requiring further briefing on the DVC’s political influence and the appointment of sitting judges. That briefing is due May 21.
The public, and this newsroom, will be watching.
This article is part of an ongoing investigation into judicial ethics, nonprofit political influence, and family court accountability in Santa Clara County. Tips can be submitted confidentially to the Davis Vanguard.
