Maricopa County Resident Accuses Judge of Unlawful Child Removals
Public Meeting Erupts Over Allegations of Judicial Misconduct
At a tense Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting held on October 1, 2025, local resident Jessica Saxton made a public accusation against Superior Court Judge Melissa Zabor, alleging that the judge has unlawfully removed children from their parents in violation of federal and constitutional law. Saxton delivered her statement during the open public comments portion of the meeting, holding up documents she described as evidentiary support for her claims and serving them formally to members of the board.
According to Saxtonâs testimony, the alleged actions by Judge Zabor constitute âunlawful restraint of liberty,â invoking both federal laws surrounding due process and common law definitions of kidnapping. The assertion immediately captured the attention of attendees, leading to a brief but charged exchange between Saxton and board representatives before she was allowed to complete her remarks.
The confrontation underscores rising tensions in Maricopa County over family court decisions, particularly regarding child removals, guardianship assignments, and parental rights. Though the Board of Supervisors does not oversee judicial conduct, the public nature of Saxtonâs allegations ensured the matter could not easily be dismissed.
The Allegations and Supporting Documents
Saxton stated that her evidence included case filings, federal statutes, and references to prior rulings that, in her view, confirm a pattern of misconduct. She claimed that multiple parents in Maricopa County have been subjected to what she described as âunauthorized judicial seizuresâ of their children without adequate due process or lawful justification.
Observers noted that Saxton appeared organized and deliberate, treating her public statement as a matter of legal record. âThis is not a custody disputeâitâs a question of legality,â she said, standing before the boardâs seated members. âJudge Zaborâs removal actions meet every element of unlawful restraint of liberty as defined under federal law.â
While county supervisors did not engage directly with the substance of her claims, they accepted the served materials. The exchange was recorded on the boardâs official public meeting video, now circulating widely on social media.
Background on Maricopa County Family Court System
Maricopa County, Arizona, has one of the largest judicial systems in the United States, processing tens of thousands of family law cases each year. The family division of the Maricopa County Superior Court oversees matters of custody, divorce, child support, and parental rights termination. Judges like Melissa Zabor handle complex and emotionally charged cases that often draw public controversy due to their life-altering impact on families.
Over the past decade, advocates and watchdog groups have raised concerns about transparency and accountability in the courtâs child welfare decisions. Cases involving Department of Child Safety (DCS) interventions have been particularly contentious, as families and attorneys argue that the removal of children without sufficient cause or evidentiary hearings may violate constitutional protections.
Arizonaâs DCS records show that child removals in the state peaked in the mid-2010s, reaching over 18,000 at one point. Though numbers have since declined, many still view the system as overly aggressive. The agency has defended its practices as necessary to protect children from abuse and neglect, citing federal mandates under the Adoption and Safe Families Act.
Federal and Legal Framework of the Claims
Saxtonâs accusations rest heavily on her interpretation of federal law surrounding civil liberties and unlawful restraint. She cited 18 U.S. Code § 242, which criminalizes the deprivation of rights under color of law, as central to her complaint. This statute is often referenced in cases where individuals claim that a public official acted beyond their lawful authority or used government power to violate a protected right.
Legal scholars note that instances where judges are accused of unlawful restraint are extremely rare, primarily because of judicial immunity, which broadly protects judges from civil or criminal prosecution for acts performed in their judicial capacity. However, immunity does not cover actions taken without jurisdiction or in bad faith.
If Saxtonâs allegations prove that the removals occurred absent legal authorityâsuch as a lack of jurisdiction or due processâthe situation could meet the criteria for federal review. Yet it remains to be seen whether any agency or oversight body will formally investigate her claims.
Community Reaction and Public Discourse
Following the meeting, community reaction has been strong and divided. Some residents expressed support for Saxtonâs courage in bringing the matter forward publicly, especially in a climate where parents often fear retaliation for speaking against judges. Others criticized the manner and setting of the accusation, suggesting it should have been raised through formal judicial review channels rather than a county meeting.
Local activist groups advocating for family court reform said the incident highlights a larger pattern of systemic issues. âWe continue to hear from parents who say their children were taken without cause or kept from them despite court-ordered reunification,â said one advocacy leader based in Phoenix. âWhether or not this one judge is culpable, the public deserves transparency and oversight.â
Analysts observe that public frustration over opaque family court proceedings has reached a boiling point nationwide. Arizonaâs situation mirrors growing movements in states like California, Texas, and Michigan, where parents have petitioned for legislative inquiries into child removals and judicial conduct.
Administrative and Judicial Oversight Pathways
Complaints against judges in Arizona fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, an independent body responsible for assessing allegations of misconduct or ethical violations. The commission reviews hundreds of complaints annually but sustains only a small fraction after preliminary screening. Sanctions range from private reprimands to formal removal, though removals remain exceedingly rare.
If Saxton follows through with a formal complaint, the Commission may determine whether Judge Zaborâs alleged actions qualify for investigation. Typically, such reviews rely heavily on documented evidence, sworn testimony, and clear proof that a judge exceeded their legal authority.
Legal observers note that public accusations of this nature often face steep procedural hurdles. Even if a judgeâs ruling were later deemed erroneous, appellate reliefâsuch as reversal or remandâdoes not automatically constitute misconduct. To breach the threshold of âunlawful removal,â proof must demonstrate intent or willful disregard for due process, an evidentiary level notoriously difficult to satisfy.
Broader Social and Economic Impact
Beyond the courtroom, allegations like those raised by Saxton can carry profound human and economic ripple effects. Child removals often strain public resources, increasing costs for foster care systems, legal representation, and administrative oversight. Each removal caseâlawful or notârepresents thousands of taxpayer dollars spent in hearings, case management, and state-funded care.
Arizonaâs child welfare budget exceeds a billion dollars annually, making the state one of the top per-capita spenders in the southwestern United States. Critics argue that the financial incentives tied to federal reimbursements for foster placements can inadvertently encourage child removals over family reunification efforts. Federal law provides financial support for states meeting child protection benchmarks, but opponents argue that these metrics can distort priorities away from family preservation.
Economically, family fragmentation also generates indirect costsâlost work hours for affected parents, increased reliance on public assistance, and long-term developmental challenges for children separated from their families. Such socioeconomic consequences often intensify calls for judicial restraint and transparency in custody-related rulings.
Historical Context of Judicial Accountability in Arizona
Arizona has grappled with public scrutiny of its judicial system since the mid-20th century, when a series of ethics scandals prompted reforms in judicial oversight and conduct evaluation. The creation of the stateâs Commission on Judicial Conduct in 1971 aimed to balance judicial independence with public accountability. Since then, the number of formal disciplinary actions against judges remains small, generally fewer than a dozen each decade.
Past controversies involving family court judges have occasionally led to resignations or disciplinary censure but have seldom risen to the level of criminal prosecution. The stateâs judiciary emphasizes the necessity of protecting judges from external pressure while ensuring the integrity of the bench. Nevertheless, recurring complaints from parentsâ rights groups suggest enduring distrust toward the family court apparatus.
Saxtonâs allegations add to this legacy of contention, coming at a time when citizensâ groups nationwide are mobilizing for greater oversight of child protection courts. The issue resonates particularly in Arizona, where state agencies and courts have faced prior federal audits over procedural compliance and custody practices.
Potential Next Steps
As of early October, no official statement has been issued by Judge Zabor or by the Maricopa County Superior Court addressing Saxtonâs allegations. The Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of Saxtonâs filings but confirmed that matters of judicial conduct fall outside its jurisdiction. The county has declined further comment pending any formal investigation by authorized oversight bodies.
Legal analysts expect that the controversy may lead to a petition for federal review or a civil rights filing in U.S. District Court, depending on the strength of Saxtonâs evidence. If federal authorities accept the case, it could mark one of the most notable challenges to Arizonaâs family court procedures in recent memory.
Community advocates are calling for public hearings and independent audits of the local child welfare system to assess whether protocols were violated. Others urge restraint, warning that public accusations against sitting judges can erode faith in the judicial process if unsupported by legal proof.
The Growing Debate Over Parental Rights and Court Power
The Maricopa County confrontation reflects a wider national debate over the boundaries of judicial power in family courts. As parents continue to challenge longstanding procedures for child removal, the tension between state authority and individual liberty remains a defining feature of U.S. family law. Saxtonâs act of defiance at a county meetingâpublicly serving documents and invoking federal protectionsâembodies this shifting landscape, where citizens increasingly use both the courtroom and the court of public opinion to demand accountability.
Whether her allegations lead to legal consequences or policy reform, the public spotlight now shines firmly on Maricopa Countyâs family court systemâan arena where questions of justice, parental rights, and government authority collide in deeply personal and far-reaching ways.