By Stephen James and Susan Bassi
Last fall, the nation was shaken by a shocking video that surfaced on social media, capturing the violent abduction of Maya and Sebastian from their grandmother’s Santa Cruz home. This distressing incident shed light on the harrowing experiences of many teens across the country involved in their parents’ divorce or custody disputes. The events that followed exposed the dark world of reunification therapy and the need for urgent reform in the family court system.
The original video that went viral with over 20 million views showed Maya, a brave young girl, desperately trying to protect her little brother from being taken away by unknown men. In a heart-wrenching scene, she was forcibly dragged through her grandmother’s garage, enduring physical violence and having her pants pulled down. The incident left her with a split lip and a minor concussion. Shockingly, the men carrying out this violent act, while police officers looked on, were there by court order, claiming it was in the children’s “best interest,” a controversial family court legal standard.
The saga that led to this disturbing event traces back to the family court order related to Maya and Sebastian’s parents’ divorce. The court ordered them to undergo “reunification therapy” at the infamous Family Bridges facility. Reunification camps are founded on the premise of “parental alienation,” a debunked concept often seen in high conflict divorce cases, where one parent accuses the other of harmful interference in the children’s relationship with them.
Maya and Sebastian were subjected to days of isolation at Family Bridges, where they were cut off from classmates, friends, and family back in Santa Cruz. They were 
called liars and told memories of abuse were false.
While in the reunification process, at the age of eleven, Sebastian reported he was forced to sit on his mother’s lap and take photos. He claimed that when speaking up, or resisting a controversial policy, he was threatened with being taken to a Wilderness Camp and separated from his sister. He also claimed to have been forced to post favorably about his mother on Facebook. Then after four days of reunification “therapy” the children were forced to move to Washington based on another court order issued by Judge Rebecca Connolly.
Days before their abduction last fall, the court appointed minors counsel, Brian Myers, alleged a breakdown in trust and communication with his young clients. Myers reportedly ignored the children and their claims of abuse, claiming to not believe them. Maya reportedly told Mr. Myers, the morning of the abduction, they were fearful and didn’t want to live with their mother. Instead of addressing their concerns, the children were thrown into a sea of professionals working in the so-called “Parental Alienation Industry,” seemingly pushing the proceedings towards the tragic outcome of abduction and forced “reunification therapy.”
Reunification therapy is meant to reunite children with the allegedly estranged parent. However, as seen in the extreme case of Maya and Sebastian, the process is often marred by pseudo-scientific practices reminiscent of conversion therapy. The harm inflicted on the children is evident, with long-term psychological consequences akin to those seen in conversion therapy victims.
After their traumatic experiences, Maya and her little brother reportedly ran away from their mother and are in hiding. Judge Connolly’s orders remain in effect. Family court orders in the case reportedly prevent the children from returning to school or home with their family and friends in Santa Cruz. Judge Rebecca Conolly also sealed court records and the courtroom in connection with the case.
This summer, instead of vacationing, learning to drive, or hanging out with friends at the beach, Maya and Sebastian have turned to social media to bravely speak out about their experiences. They are educating others about the dangers of reunification therapy and family court.
Maya’s remote testimony before California’s Judiciary Committee on July 11, 2023, brought attention to the need for reform. After hearing her testimony, Assemblymember Bill Essayli condemned reunification camps, calling them “barbaric.”
The physical abduction was not all Maya and her little brother endured as a result of their parents’ divorce. When the children asked to live with their father, and alleged their mother was abusive, they were not believed. Countless lawyers and experts were brought into the case to address matters involving the children’s allegations, and where they should live. Most of the conflict was created by the adults profiting from court appointments and the junk science behind the ‘ reunification process.” The docket in the divorce case shows over 500 entries, most occurring after 2019 when their parents were legally divorced.
Before Maya and Sebastian were taken from their grandma’s house, minors counsel Brian Myers claimed there was a breakdown in communication and trust where his young clients were concerned. However, it was not until 2023 that Myers was permitted to withdraw. Morris Bisted and Heather Allan were appointed in his place.
Maya and Sebastian’s Story Resonates with Those Facing Similar Struggles
Gwen and Grace from Cook County, Illinois, face a similar custody battle involving their allegedly abusive mother. In that case when the girls asked to spend school nights with their father and stepmother, their mother, an Abbvie executive, was greatly displeased. Her displeasure led to more attorneys, therapists and court-appointed experts being paid staggering sums to act in the “best interest” of the children, despite the divorce having been settled years earlier.
When Gwen and Grace posted videos about their mother’s alleged abuse, and the family court system, those videos were amplified on Maya and Sebastian’s social media platforms. Soon thereafter, the girls’ mother filed an ex parte, or emergency request, with the court. Their mother was requesting the judge assist in getting the videos removed from the internet and additionally asked to shutter her daughter’s cell phones and electronic devices.
Vanessa Hammer, the attorney appointed to represent Gwen and Grace as a Guardian ad litem (GAL), reportedly supported the mother’s request to have the videos removed from social media. Hammer allegedly told the family court judge the videos could be devastating to her career.
The Vanguard reached out to Hammer for comment. She did not respond prior to publication.
Patterns seen in the Maya and Sebastian case are strikingly similar to those seen in Gwen and Grace’s case in Illinois. Both parents’ divorces concluded years earlier, with agreements for custody time for both parents. However, allegations of abuse changed the trajectory, clearing the way for hundreds of thousands of dollars to be paid to attorneys, therapists, GALS, supervised visitation providers, minors counsel, mediators, private judges, and private transportation companies more powerful than local police.
As teens impacted by family court take to social media to educate and find others, the fight for First Amendment protections and use of social media may be the most important fight yet.
The Davis Vanguard is committed to expanding coverage of California’s family and criminal courts. The Tainted Trials, Tarnished Headlines, Stolen Justice Investigative Series is a part of that expansion. To support this important work, please donate, subscribe and note the donation as an unrestricted gift or as an employer match contribution.
