When Judge Garry Ichikawa faced a recall petition in Solano County, his written response revealed a deeply troubling misunderstanding of both democratic accountability and the legitimate concerns of families seeking justice in family court. His October 10, 2017 “Response to Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition” systematically dismissed serious allegations of judicial misconduct with deflections, irrelevant credentials, and patronizing generalizations about “bitter litigation.” Let’s examine his core defenses point by point.
RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITION
Facts before You Sign: When parents share custody, they often reach agreements and learn to make co-parenting work through compromise. If parents challenge each other’s custody, the judge must evaluate evidence to make orders in the children’s best interests. One parent may agree with the decision. The other may not. Litigation sometimes becomes very bitter and continues for years. Changing judges won’t prevent that.
Five Generations of My Family Call Solano County Home: I’m an army veteran who graduated from local schools, U.C. Berkeley and U.C. Davis. My law career: lawyer 1976, certified family law specialist 1985, and Judge 2000.
Public Service: Elected: Fairfield City Council and Solano Community College Governing Board. Appointed: Solano Farm Lands and Open Space Foundation (established Rush Ranch), Juvenile Justice Commission of the State Bar of California (helped write law requiring child abuse reporting), and California Board of Legal Specialization (wrote/graded family law specialist exam). Volunteer Lawyer: Fairfield Senior Center (15 years).
Recognition: 2017 California Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year (State Bar of California), 2016 Community Recognition Award (La Raza Lawyers of Solano), 2015 Benjamin Aranda III Access to Justice Award (Judicial Council of California), and 2013 Gloria Hobson Nordin Social Equity Award (American Society for Public Administration).
Retirement: After 40+ years in the courtroom as a lawyer and a judge, I recently announced my retirement.
Date: October 10, 2017
[Signature] Garry T. Ichikawa 400 Union Avenue Fairfield, CA 94533
Deconstructing Ichikawa’s Defenses
Defense #1: “Litigation Sometimes Becomes Very Bitter and Continues for Years”
Ichikawa’s opening gambit reveals everything wrong with his mindset. He writes: “When parents share custody, they often reach agreements and learn to make co-parenting work through compromise. If parents challenge each other’s custody, the judge must evaluate evidence to make orders in the children’s best interests. One parent may agree with the decision. The other may not. Litigation sometimes becomes very bitter and continues for years.”
Why This Defense Fails: This patronizing explanation treats recall petitioners like children who simply don’t understand how courts work. But the families behind this recall weren’t confused about losing cases, they were documenting a pattern of judicial conduct that allegedly endangered children and survivors of domestic violence. Ichikawa’s response completely sidesteps the specific allegations against him, instead offering a civics lesson that insults the intelligence of concerned parents and advocates.
More damning, his framing assumes that “bitter litigation” is inevitable and that judicial decisions are beyond scrutiny as long as they follow process. This fundamentally misunderstands the difference between disappointment with outcomes and legitimate concerns about inappropriate judicial conduct.
Defense #2: “Changing Judges Won’t Prevent That”
Perhaps the most telling line in Ichikawa’s response is his dismissive conclusion that “changing judges won’t prevent” bitter litigation.
Why This Defense Fails: This reveals a judge who sees himself as interchangeable with any other judge, which was probably true considering that at the time, the other two sitting family law judges (Cynda Riggins-Unger and Christine Carringer) were equally as problematic. The recall petitioners weren’t trying to eliminate all family court conflict; they were trying to remove a specific judge whose conduct was deeply concerning.
By suggesting that all judges would produce the same results, Ichikawa inadvertently argues that judicial accountability is pointless, a position that undermines the entire concept of democratic oversight of the judiciary.
Defense #3: Resume Padding and Credential Listing
Rather than address specific allegations, Ichikawa devotes significant space to listing his education, military service, public positions, and awards, including being named “2017 California Family Law Judicial Officer of the Year.”
Why This Defense Fails: This is classic deflection. Impressive credentials don’t immunize someone from accountability, nor do they address specific patterns of harmful judicial conduct. In fact, the disconnect between Ichikawa’s accolades and the serious concerns raised by recall petitioners makes his conduct more troubling, not less.
The “Judicial Officer of the Year” award is particularly ironic, it suggests either that the awarding body was unaware of the problems families were experiencing in his courtroom, or that the legal establishment’s definition of excellence differs dramatically from what families seeking protection actually need.
Ironically, Ichikawa failed to cite being heralded for spearheading an Integrated Domestic Violence Court that never materialized, despite receiving hundreds of thousands in grants from the DOJ.
Defense #4: The Volunteer Work Smokescreen
Ichikawa mentions his volunteer work at the Fairfield Senior Center, as if community service elsewhere excuses problematic judicial conduct.
Why This Defense Fails: Being nice to seniors doesn’t excuse allegedly failing to protect children and survivors of domestic violence. This defense is insulting to both seniors and families, it suggests that volunteer work can somehow balance out judicial misconduct, as if justice operates on a point system where good deeds elsewhere compensate for courtroom failures.
Defense #5: The Non-Response Response
Most telling of all is what Ichikawa doesn’t address in his response: the specific allegations that prompted the recall petition. No engagement with claims about his handling of domestic violence cases, no explanation of controversial custody decisions, no acknowledgment of the concerns that drove multiple recall efforts in Solano County.
Why This Defense Fails: You can’t defend against charges you refuse to acknowledge. By treating the recall as generic “bitter litigation” rather than specific allegations of judicial misconduct, Ichikawa demonstrates either contempt for his accusers or inability to engage with legitimate criticism of his judicial performance.
What Ichikawa’s Response Reveals About Judicial Arrogance
The most damaging aspect of Ichikawa’s response isn’t what it says, it’s what it reveals about his mindset. His tone-deaf dismissal of legitimate concerns, his reliance on credentials over accountability, and his fundamental mischaracterization of the recall effort expose a judge who had lost touch with both his responsibilities and his accountability to the community.
The Patronizing Problem
Throughout his response, Ichikawa treats recall petitioners like uninformed citizens who simply don’t understand how courts work. His opening “Facts before You Sign” reads like a condescending civics lesson, explaining basic concepts about custody litigation as if concerned parents and advocates couldn’t possibly understand the difference between normal courtroom disappointment and systematic judicial misconduct.
This patronizing tone reveals a judge who sees criticism as evidence of ignorance rather than accountability. It suggests someone who believes his position entitles him to deference rather than scrutiny – exactly the kind of judicial arrogance that recall processes exist to check.
The Accountability Vacuum
Perhaps most telling is Ichikawa’s complete failure to engage with any specific allegations against him. His response reads like a generic template that any judge facing any recall could use, regardless of the underlying concerns. This is a fundamental abdication of accountability.
When public officials face serious charges, the public deserves specific responses to specific allegations. By treating legitimate concerns about his judicial conduct as generic “bitter litigation,” Ichikawa demonstrated exactly the kind of dismissive attitude that made his recall necessary.
The Stakes Are Too High for Dismissiveness
When judges handle family court cases, they make decisions that literally determine whether children are safe, whether domestic violence victims are protected, and whether families can heal or are further traumatized. The stakes could not be higher. In this context, dismissing legitimate concerns about judicial conduct as mere disappointment with rulings trivializes the real harm that can result from poor judicial decision-making.
The recall petitioners weren’t seeking to overturn specific rulings they disliked, they were seeking to prevent future harm by removing a judge whose conduct patterns, they argued, demonstrated unfitness for the enormous responsibility of family court decisions.
The Timing Tells the Story
The most revealing aspect of this entire letter is the timing of his “retirement” announcement. After 40+ years in the courtroom, he just happened to decide to retire after being served with recall papers? The coincidence strains credibility.
If Ichikawa truly believed his record was defensible, if he genuinely thought the recall was just “bitter litigation” from disappointed parents, why not stay and fight? Why not defend his judicial record and prove his critics wrong?
Because he calculated that he could sidestep democratic accountability entirely through strategic retirement. Ichikawa likely believed he could continue sitting on the bench as an assigned judge, wielding the same judicial power while enjoying immunity from recall. This reveals the cynical heart of his entire strategy: not genuine retirement, but an end-run around the democratic process that would allow him to rule with impunity.
It was the ultimate act of judicial arrogance, attempting to preserve power while escaping accountability. The recall petition forced Ichikawa to choose between facing the voters or finding a backdoor to continue judging without consequences. His choice speaks volumes about both his confidence in his record and his respect for democratic oversight. Rather than trust the community that elected him to evaluate his performance, he chose to game the system; a fitting end to a judicial career that, according to his critics, had already placed legal maneuvering above ethics.
The Real Legacy
Ichikawa’s response document will stand as a perfect example of how not to handle legitimate criticism of judicial conduct. Rather than engaging with serious allegations about child safety and domestic violence protection, he offered:
- Condescending explanations of basic legal concepts
- Irrelevant credential listing
- Generic deflections about “bitter litigation”
- Complete avoidance of specific allegations
- Patronizing assumptions about his critics’ motivations
This response epitomizes the judicial arrogance and lack of accountability that made his recall necessary in the first place.