FAIRFIELD, Calif. — Alleging Solano County transformed family visitation into a source of revenue by replacing in-person contact with paid video calls, a group of children and parents of incarcerated people filed suit Wednesday against Solano County, the Solano County Sheriff’s Office, Sheriff Brad DeWall and telecommunications provider iWebVisit, arguing the policy violates California’s constitutional protections for family association.
The lawsuit, filed July 22 in Solano County Superior Court, contends the defendants conspired to eliminate in-person contact visits and force families to pay for video calls to maintain relationships with incarcerated loved ones. Plaintiffs argue the arrangement infringes on the California Constitution’s protection of family integrity while generating revenue for both the County and the private telecommunications company.
“Under the California Constitution, families of incarcerated people are still afforded a right to family integrity,” said Kory DeClark, partner at BraunHagey & Borden LLP and an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “This includes the ability to hug and hold hands with their incarcerated loved one.”
The lawsuit is the fourth filed as part of the Right 2 Hug Project, a national litigation effort challenging contact visitation bans. The project has previously filed two lawsuits in Michigan and one in Colorado challenging similar jail policies that replace in-person visitation with paid remote communication.
According to the complaint and a press release issued by Public Justice, the plaintiffs argue contact visitation bans can cause irreparable harm to parent-child relationships by preventing physical contact between incarcerated people and their immediate family members.
The lawsuit alleges that Solano County entered into an exclusive contract with iWebVisit in 2014 under which the Sheriff’s Office receives up to 35 percent of the revenue generated from video visitation. Families have since paid between $5.70 and $9 for a 30-minute video call. During the 2024-25 fiscal year, Solano County reported receiving approximately $147,000 in revenue from iWebVisit.
The complaint alleges the financial arrangement creates an incentive to eliminate in-person visitation because both the County and iWebVisit benefit when families must pay to communicate with incarcerated loved ones.
“Every dollar I spend on iWebVisit is a dollar I am not spending on food, on hygiene supplies or on doing my laundry,” said 70-year-old plaintiff Deborah Fernandez Crowder Music, whose son is detained in Solano County. “I regularly have to choose between calling my son and meeting my own basic needs.”
The Right 2 Hug Project alleges similar telecommunications contracts exist in correctional facilities around the country, allowing local agencies to receive a share of the revenue generated through video calls and other communication services.
“In exchange for these kickbacks, administrators sign exclusive contracts with providers that also protect the corporation’s own generous profit margin,” the project’s website states. “Meanwhile, incarcerated people and their families, who make up a captive market, are left with an impossible choice: pay for costly calls or be disconnected.”
The lawsuit argues the alleged pay-to-visit arrangement reflects a broader system in which incarcerated people and their families bear increasing financial burdens for maintaining basic family connections. Similar “pay-to-stay” practices, in which incarcerated people are charged fees for services and necessities while in custody, have drawn criticism from organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the contact visitation ban unconstitutional and require Solano County to restore in-person contact visits between incarcerated parents and children. If successful, the lawsuit could establish that California’s constitutional protection of family association includes the right to physical contact between incarcerated people and their immediate family members.
“Ever since my dad went to jail, I haven’t been able to hug him, touch him, or be in the same room as him,” said 15-year-old plaintiff BaKari Jacoby Etter, whose father is detained in Solano County. “I feel our relationship changing. I notice myself feeling less connected to him. I can tell that I’m distancing myself from him even though I don’t want to. Some days are extra hard, like my birthday and Father’s Day. On those days, I feel especially sad that the jail won’t let me see him.”
Plaintiff Joseph Duran, Jr., whose son is detained in Solano County, said his own experiences with different forms of jail visitation convinced him that technology cannot replace face-to-face contact.
“In my life, I have experienced almost every kind of communication a family can have with someone in custody—overnight visits, contact visits, through-glass, and video calls. Relying on anything other than contact visits really takes something away from the relationship. Through-glass is heartbreaking. Video is even further removed,” Duran said.
Plaintiff Kenetra Chappelle said restoring contact visits would allow her family to support her incarcerated daughter through a period of profound personal loss.
“If the Solano County jails allowed family contact visits, I would visit Kam every week. I would bring her younger sister to see her, and I would help her grandmothers see her too,” Chappelle said. “It would mean the world to be able to hug my daughter again. It would give me a chance to show her that her family is still here for her, especially now that she is grieving the loss of her father.”
“We hope the county makes the right choice—the only lawful and moral choice—to stop profiting from family separation and allow children to hug their parents,” said Alexandra Jordan, senior attorney at Public Justice.
Chesa Boudin, founding executive director of Berkeley Law’s Criminal Law & Justice Center, said the lawsuit asks the court to enforce constitutional protections for families affected by incarceration.
“I grew up visiting my parents behind bars, so I know that being in the same room with the people you love is what holds families together through incarceration. The California Constitution protects that bond. Yet Solano County profits by charging families for video calls while banning contact visits—monetizing the very bond the Constitution protects. Our lawsuit is about restoring that right to hug,” Boudin said.
Matt Garcia, an attorney with Civil Rights Corps, argued the County’s visitation policy serves financial interests rather than legitimate correctional objectives.
“iWebVisit and Solano County have made hundreds of thousands of dollars by banning children from hugging their parents, leaving expensive calls as the only option for families to communicate. The ban on family visits is about profit, nothing else. Profiteering has never been considered a compelling government interest. We hope that the court recognizes this and affirms California children’s right to hug their parents,” Garcia said.
The plaintiffs are represented by Berkeley Law’s Criminal Law & Justice Center, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, Civil Rights Corps and Public Justice.
Solano County and iWebVisit had not responded publicly to the allegations in the lawsuit as of Thursday. The complaint presents the plaintiffs’ allegations, which have not yet been tested in court.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
