Now that we are years out from the forced retirement of Judge Cinda Riggins Unger, it is time toconnect the dots on the allegations made against her. Unger had two stints in family law. During her first stint, she was awarded Judicial Officer of the Year in family law in 2006 at the State Bar of California Annual Meeting.
When Unger was transferred to juvenile court, the cracks started to show. In juvenile dependency court, both the state and the child are represented by attorneys, and many of those attorneys filed a 170.6. A 170.6 is a peremptory challenge that allows attorneys or litigants to disqualify a judge as a peremptory challenge. The consistent 170.6 filings against Unger seemingly created an administrative burden for the court, and she was transferred back to family law.
This is about the time things began to go downhill. Attorneys and litigants around then believed Unger had been deeply affected by her time in juvenile court. She saw children caught in the fallout of broken homes, and she attributed the damage to fathers being absent. When she returned to family court, she seemed determined to correct that.
Her rulings reflected that determination. She became known for ensuring that fathers had custody, no matter the circumstances. She placed children with men who had just been released from incarceration for violent offenses. She gave liberal custody rights to men who had beaten the mothers of their children, even during pregnancy. She also gave custody to men who had credible allegations of child abuse/molestation against them.
When those mothers asked for protective orders, Unger often denied them. She went further, requiring some of those same women to personally facilitate visitation exchanges with the men who had assaulted them.
To put it bluntly, there were cases where men had brutally beaten the mothers of their children, and Unger still forced those women to personally hand over their kids to the abuser. She refused to make findings of domestic violence, which would have triggered Family Code 3044 and limited the abuser’s custody rights. In several of those cases, criminal courts had no trouble issuing protective orders that Unger had denied.
She ruled with clear bias. She used tactics in her courtroom to intimidate any litigant or witness who tried to speak about violence, molestation, or child abuse. She developed a history of refusing to protect victims. In our analysis, we found that her rulings showed consistent bias in cases where a domestic violence restraining order was requested alongside a custody matter.
Unger appeared to do whatever she needed to do to reach her desired outcome, whether right or wrong, ethical or not, consistent with law or in violation of law. Her reputation as a biased judge spread so quickly that two things began to happen. First, attorneys took cases before her only if they represented the father. Second, many litigants started hiring her (late) husband, when he actively practiced law, as a tactic to force her recusal due to conflict of interest.
That tactic backfired. At some point Unger realized what was happening, and she began refusing to recuse herself even when her husband represented one of the litigants, often the mother. Asking a judge to recuse themselves is one of the most wicked parts of the system. The judge gets to decide, and a judge who wants to stay on a case can simply refuse to recuse.
Unger’s (late) husband had his own troubled history. He had been accused of sexual harassment by multiple former clients. That meant female litigants, already desperate, would hire him as a way to escape Unger’s courtroom, only to face harassment from him. It was insanity.
Unger benefitted from the arrangement. She held common law ownership of his practice, so every time a litigant paid his firm, she profited. She enriched herself from the desperation of the people in her courtroom. The people caught in that system did not walk away unscathed. Some died. Many carry damage that they cannot recover from.
Get Her Out Of Here!
Activists never stopped trying to recall Judge Cinda Riggins Unger. Grassroots organizers, community members, and litigants affected by her rulings rallied to serve her with recall petitions. As recall efforts gained traction, Unger began spreading word that she planned to retire, almost as a preemptive shield, something she had done previously.
The 2014 recall drive failed to reach the required signatures. But advocates pressed on. In February 2018, volunteers tried again. On February 15, three advocates attempted to serve her notice of intent to recall. Unger summoned county deputies to block them. She evaded service a second time by avoiding main hallways and using back channels.
Advocates finally served the notice on February 22, days later, by delivering it to her clerk in Department 5.
Officials described that moment as part of a pattern. Solano County had seen five recall attempts against Solano County family court judges in five years. Unger faced two of those recall filings.
Soon after, she left family court and moved to criminal court. There, she quickly announced her retirement and began what advocates described as a prolonged vacation solanofamilies.org.
Unger officially retired on April 30, 2018 after 17 years on the Solano County bench . She resigned amid mounting complaints, including allegations of bias, demeaning conduct toward litigants, and disregard for victim safety. Officials reportedly offered her a choice: face a transfer to the criminal division or retire. She chose retirement.