**LUTHMANN NOTE: Glorified sperm donor Miguel Rivera is acting like a fucking moron about the free press, and his latest demand to Michael Volpe explains my judgment. He didn’t like the reporting about his California Family Court case (apparently presided over by Joette Katz‘s grubbier-looking little cousin, Beth Jordan of Marin County), so he announces to Volpe that his case is “confidential.” Then expects a newsroom to start erasing. Where is the authority binding this publisher? Perhaps the confusion isn’t entirely his fault. The Mainstream Media helps muddy the discussion when identification gets folded into a broad narrative of “doxing.” We recently saw this with All-Universe Ivy League slut Lucy Craig, whom the commissars and commentariat still term “Jane Doe” in the Cornell Seven case. More like TRAIN DOE. Don’t believe me? The charade is on full display in **
**Threats and swatting deserve condemnation. They don’t settle a separate publication question. A newsroom may choose anonymity; that editorial choice does not become Miguel Rivera’s censorship power. He can request discretion. He doesn’t get to appoint himself our editor. The constitutional distinction has substance. In **Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 533–41 (1989), the Supreme Court protected publication of truthful, lawfully obtained information in the circumstances before it. In Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32–37 (1984), it upheld restrictions on information obtained through litigation discovery, while distinguishing information acquired elsewhere. Together, they expose what Rivera’s quoted demand misunderstands: a free press does not bend when reporting on the functions of government, and for this blog, that means the family courts and all of their related instrumentalities. This piece is “Miguel Rivera’s Free-Press Faceplant.”
Michael Volpe’s complete interview with protective mother Laura Hutchinson and his original article are published below. You can read the original article on Michael Volpe’s Substack.
A California mom said a change in judge starting in 2024 brought about extreme bias causing her to be almost entirely removed from her son’s life.
Laura Hutchison said her custody case with her ex-husband, Miguel Rivera, started in 2021.
From the beginning until the end of 2023, Judge Sheila Shah Lichtblau presided.
“She was a really great judge; she had a great demeanor,” Laura said of Judge Lichtblau. “She was really fair.”
During the period when Judge Lichtblau presided over the case the parties shared custody, along with sharing decision making authority.
In 2024, she was rotated out of the family court division; she is currently the Supervising Appellate Judge of Civil Law and Community Court, according to the court’s website.
She was replaced on the custody case by Judge Beth Jordan.
Shortly before being replaced, Judge Lichtblau made a fateful decision.
Initially, both parties lived in Marin County, where the custody case was filed.
Laura told me that she moved to San Ramon, about an hour away, with her then-fiancé.
She filed to have their son go to school in that school district.
We were living in the same city for a while. And then I met my ex-fiancé, who I have two young children with, and moved about an hour away to San Ramon- which is in the Contra Costa School District- which is a national blue ribbon school district and one of the best school districts.
Because their son was still in pre-K, Judge Lichtblau tabled the decision.
(Note: I previously interviewed Joanna Rivera, who had a much worse experience with Judge Lichtblau.)
Judge Jordan was left to handle it after she took over the case.
Before that, Laura said she was about to give birth and asked for their son to spend two weeks with her, to meet his new baby sister.
Her daughter was born February 1, 2024.
She told me that each party could get two weeks of vacation time, per the court order, as long as the other party was notified at least two weeks prior.
She said all went well until five days after the birth, when Miguel, who did not respond to an email for comment, filed an ex-parte and stated that he had not approved the two weeks away. Laura explained further to me.
I was going to be giving birth and I was going to take our son for my two week vacation that year around that time so he could be a part of the birth experience and be a part of the first couple of days at home with a new baby because that was such a big transition for a little boy and he was only six years old at the time or five years old at the time, sorry. And I wanted to make sure that he adjusted well and also felt really loved and like he wasn’t having any anxiety about it in any way.
So, he was able to be at the hospital for that and be a part of that entire experience. And he did so well, and he was so happy and so in love with his baby sister. And doing so well. And my ex filed his ex parte saying that he had refused the vacation time and he wanted him returned immediately and made something about how he had plans to go to Tahoe. And it was like 49ers in the Super Bowl. And he had people coming from out of town and he wanted our son there. And he didn’t agree to have him taken out of school.
At the next hearing, Laura remembered Judge Jordan berating her, “she proceeds to tell me the first time meeting me how absolutely awful she thought that I was for doing what I did.”
Judge Jordan did not return an email left with her chamber.
Laura said she was forced to drive her son back to his dad “five days post-partum.”
Then, the school selection hearing occurred in July 2024.
Prior to that, they were mandated to go to family court services mediation with Dr. Gloria Wu.
The mediation was different than in most cases. If no agreement was reached, the mediator made recommendations.
Laura told me that in this mediation Miguel recycled old allegations.
In 2023, he claimed that Laura’s then fiancé was “waterboarding” their son. This was investigated by social services and heard by Judge Lichtblau.
The allegation was dismissed, and Miguel then went to a neighboring county and got a temporary protective order, which Laura had to fight. Below is Laura explaining the circumstances.
The protective order was dismissed, and Judge Licthblau dismissed the allegation as well.
Back in front of Dr. Wu, the allegations were recycled and Dr. Wu used them to recommend that Laura’s then fiancé be kept away from her son.
The next hearing in July 2024 was supposed to look at where their son was going to go to school.
Judge Jordan, Laura told me, turned it into a move away order, dubious since the distance was about an hour, and denied it. She also ordered Laura’s fiancé to stay away from her son.
When Laura objected, Judge Jordan, stated, “Well, I thought about that. It kept me up last night, but that’s the ruling I’m going to make.”
Laura explained further below.
Laura then made a fateful decision. She asked to appoint a custody evaluator. Judge Jordan appointed a minor’s counsel instead- Johanna Kleppe.
A minor’s counsel is similar to a guardian ad litem. Kleppe did not respond to an email for comment.
I spoke with Andy Cone, who told me that Kleppe currently represents his ex.
“She has a habit of calling everything abuse,” he told me.
He said that she argued that motions he filed were abusive.
Laura later learned that Kleppe and Miguel went to Golden Gate University School of Law for three years together. They were also part of the Marin County bar family law section together; that group, Laura told me, held a drinking event every Thursday.
Laura said things immediately went bad when Kleppe complained that Laura informed her that she was taking her son to a routine follow up appointment.
Laura said that Kleppe then questioned her about unilaterally making medical decisions.
Kleppe was perturbed again when Laura suggested a therapist in her county. Laura also noted that Kleppe has never witnessed her interacting with her son.
Subsequently, Miguel filed for legal decision-making for medical and educational decisions.
The hearing on this was on January 3, 2025. Laura said she didn’t attend the hearing. She explained further in the full interview.
And I didn’t go to the hearing because at that point it was like four to one against me and I felt like I was being ganged up on. And I felt like every time I went to court, Judge Jordan was yelling at me, raising her voice at me, telling me how absolutely awful that she thought I was, or just generally degrading my character.
Laura told me that her custody time was reduced, though she still maintained a healthy amount…for the time being.
She said her son started resisting returning to his father in December 2024. It culminated in a dramatic scene at Miguel’s place in January 2025. Laura explained further.
He goes to talk to dad who’s standing in the doorway like twice. We’re there for like 30 minutes sitting in front of his house. And I’m sitting in the car and I’m just like, whatever, whatever you want to do is fine.
Just either get your kid, and I’m going to go- or like give me a thumbs up and I’m going to take off. He {Miguel} wouldn’t come to the car and talk to me. He also wouldn’t come to the car and talk to our son. So ultimately, he went to go talk to his dad.
And he {their son} says, ‘I’m not going with you.’
And he gets back in the car, runs and jumps in the car. I look at dad. I shrug my shoulders. He doesn’t say anything. And I drove away. And this was, you know, at 9 a.m. after we’ve been up since like on the road since like 6 a.m.
This wasn’t something that just happened like in a flash. So, Johanna files an ex parte the following day for dad to have sole physical custody and me to have supervised visits.
The hearing on Kleppe’s motion for supervised visits occurred on January 17, 2025. At the hearing, Laura was accused of poisoning the relationship between father and son.
Laura told me that the term parental alienation was not used at the hearing, however, that was what was described.
“Honestly, I believe that father and son need therapy. I’m concerned about father’s relationship with this child because that’s the one that’s actually being damaged.” Kleppe said during the hearing.
Judge Jordan ordered that Laura have five minutes of phone calls daily and supervised visits. This was a temporary order, and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for March 2025.
Judge Jordan, Laura told me, postponed that hearing numerous times, and it’s finally set for Thursday, October 22, 2026.
After publication, both Judge Jordan’s chambers and Miguel Rivera responded.
Judge Jordan’s chambers provided the following statement: “Judge Jordan is unable to discuss pending cases or provide comments regarding this custody matter.”
Miguel Rivera made this request: “This is a confidential case. I ask you to remove the case numbers and the parties’ names immediately from your website.”
I asked Laura about this afterward. She said that while the case is confidential, Miguel has shared details of it with her friends and family routinely.
