Will Family Court Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca Ever be Held Accountable?

The Organized Crime of Family Court has No Checks or Balances, while Countless Innocent Victims Suffer and Die

Family Courts have two things going for them: the words, “Family” and “Court”. The public is deceived about the damage Family Courts are doing to the fabric of family structures, specifically by decimating — often literally killing — the women and children who walk into their courtroom doors. The voiceless not only entirely lose their voice, but often their psychological and physical survival as well, in this predatory system that exploits the most vulnerable like perhaps no other destructive machine (mostly because of secrecy). The public is also in the dark about how Family Courts have nothing to do with the law, having been endowed with “unlimited judicial discretion” — initially so that they could perform benevolence, but which in practice they use for the most gruesome-imaginable malevolence. Unlimited “discretion” has allowed them to steal children from healthy parents and families, to traffic them to pedophilic sex rings and the child pornography industry, and to siphon off billions of dollars from private bank accounts and federal coffers.

How does a court structure deal with such massive organized crime within its ranks? It doesn’t. Appeals are important checks and balances of the judicial process, but they do not work in overturning “discretion”; federal courts avoid getting involved, citing “the Rooker-Feldman doctrine” (a principle that prevents federal courts from rehearing state court judgments); and all other law enforcement agencies are under Family Court, not over it. This is why public exposure of Family Courts is so critical.

Below is an application for an emergency appeal my sister, Patricia Lee, filed, which I had to obtain through other means, since she is not allowed to talk to me about her case. I ran it by a talented lawyer who, impressed with her writing, said: “This should have been the perfect appeal!” However, Patricia’s judge is the notorious Jane Gallina-Mecca, who extends long tentacles to control and meddle into everything in and out of court — and she had a classmate (same school and same year) and former fellow Family Court judge in the Appellate Division deny the appeal. This is only one of numerous times she has abused her authority in the exact same way, and one of the reasons why Gallina-Mecca is being referred to the State Senate for impeachment, with close to 2000 signatures and at least a dozen recorded witness testimonies. Many good parents who have been victimized in Family Court will find resonance:

Application for Permission to File Emergency Appeal

What is the nature of the emergency?

The trial court transferred custody of my two (2) children to their violently abusive father, who almost killed each of them and was previously on a restraining order (which the Court negated by mandating visits). He has now detained them for over three (3) years, despite forensic expert reports of their steep medical and academic decline. Now, in collusion with a compromised guardian ad litem, he is targeting me for homicide.

What is the irreparable harm, and when do you expect this harm to occur?

The irreparable harm is my imminent death, not to mention my children’s ongoing “soul murder” (a psychological condition of those in my children’s situation, where they are imprisoned with their abuser without access to their primary caregiver). The emergency room documented two (2) near-death episodes in me in four (4) months, as a direct result of the guardian ad litem’s and my ex-husband’s instigation of my known medical condition. The trial court’s turning a blind eye to facts and evidence over four (4) years has emboldened them, escalating dangers for me. Numerous expert witnesses have warned that my life is at risk because of my ex-husband’s dangerous personality disorder and his “tangential spouse abuse” (abuse of my children to torment me).

What relief do you seek?

An overturning of denial of the habeas corpus motion, so that a de-facto custody arrangement, achieved through intentional lying, suppression of evidence, and fraud upon the court can be reexamined. An issuance of the order confirming my mental competence, so that my rights do not continue to be violated. And restoration of custody time, so that a fourth (4th) holiday season does not go by with my being unable to see, hear from, or exchange gifts with the children I raised since their birth.

a) Have you filed for a stay before the trial court or agency?

I have made numerous filings in the trial court, but no evidentiary hearing has resulted. The trial judge’s arbitrary and capricious, predetermined rulings, in contradiction to facts, are upheld by default through the simple passage of time.

If so, do you have a court order or agency decision denying or granting same?

The recent denial of habeas corpus amounts to an application to reconsider the November 12, 2021, ruling that transferred custody of my children, based on a secret meeting without notifying me or my lawyer, without a plenary hearing, and without a statement of reason. I am still barred from accessing the transcript of that meeting.

If you did not immediately seek a stay from the trial court or agency, or if you did not immediately file this application with the Appellate Division after the trial court or agency denied your stay application, explain the reasons for the delay.

In December 2021, the trial judge threatened my lawyer against filing an interlocutory appeal. When I went pro se, the trial judge appointed a guardian ad litem to prevent me from filing. In January 2023, I completed a psychiatric evaluation that confirmed my mental competence. The trial judge only heard it in February 2024 but refused to issue an order. When I applied for an emergency appeal anyway, in April 2023 and June 2023, they were denied because my divorce trial was supposedly “imminent” — now, seventeen (17) months have passed while I have still not seen or heard from my children.

If the order, judgment or agency decision is final, have you filed a notice of appeal?

There is not yet a final decision, even though a trial was held over six (6) months ago — in my absence and while denying me all due process.

Also, a final decision should not be considered “imminent”, as the Appellate Division deemed it when I filed my last application seventeen (17) months ago. The trial court uses stalling as a means of avoiding accountability, or of simply “habituating” an unacceptable arrangement. For example, for the past four (4) years of litigation, little has been achieved other than dragging out time to cement my children’s “traumatic bond” with their abusive father — while prohibiting, without cause or stated reason, my having any contact or communication with them, even though I was their primary caregiver. In other words, a “temporary” transfer of custody that was illegitimate and illegal in the first place was by default made “permanent” by imposing an inordinate passage of time.

What is the essence of the order, judgment or agency decision?

The order keeps me from seeing or communicating with my children for whom I was the primary caregiver all their lives. It has also served, in its fourth (4th) year, as a de-facto permanent transfer of custody of my children to their violently abusive father without due process. The basis of this order was the false arrest and malicious prosecution orchestrated by the guardian ad litem, [name redacted because of threats], in collusion with the father, Alan T. Chan, to give justification for an immediate and illegal transfer of my children without due process, without my or my lawyer being present, on the specious grounds that I was “absconding” with my children — on my assigned weekend with them. The trial court gave “legal” cover by aiding and abetting these unconstitutional actions.

a) Has any aspect of this matter been presented to or considered by another judge or part of the Appellate Division by emergent application or prior appeal proceedings?

Yes. Judge Kevin McNulty of the Third Circuit District Court, and Judges Thomas Hardiman, Thomas Ambro, and Julio Fuentes of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. They cited the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and all — including the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct — referred me to the Appellate Division.

a) Have any transcripts been ordered (particularly of the trial judge’s challenged ruling)?

Yes. I have been denied all transcripts from the last four (4) years of this litigation, including the trial judge’s challenged rulings, without recourse, justification, or explanation.

If so, when will the transcript(s) be available?

I may need the Appellate Division to compel it, as all transcripts for the last four (4) years have so far been “sealed” against me without justification or explanation.

Please give a brief summary of the facts of your case.

My full-time custody of my children, ages seven (7) and nine (9) at the time, was abruptly interrupted when a SWAT team of five (5) police officers raided and seized my children, without warning, on my authorized weekend of being specifically assigned to have them, on November 12, 2021. I was falsely accused of “absconding” with them when I had simply taken them to a nearby hotel twenty (20) minutes from my house to use its swimming pool. It was later revealed that the compromised guardian ad litem, [name redacted because of threats], and my ex-husband, Alan T. Chan, had orchestrated the raid by lying to the police and committing fraud upon the court — fraud that was so blatant, the police immediately dropped the charges against me, but the trial court never returned my children. The previous weekend, it was discovered, my ex-husband actually tried to abscond with the children, having stolen their passports and crossed state lines into Pennsylvania, violating court directives — and was caught because the children called my father in terror. My ex-husband had reasons to abscond, having recently had zero (0) custody, while on a restraining order for slamming our 7-year-old son against a window, almost crushing his skull. He also almost killed our daughter as an infant, by throwing her in the air to land head first on a concrete floor. This raid was also a near-homicide, as the court had been notified of my life-threatening medical condition just hours earlier. Once [my children] were abducted, the trial judge simply closed down all investigations and refused any plenary hearings, despite reports of numerous other injuries and failure to thrive, unprecedented absences from school, and their “care” being passed onto their feeble, 87-year-old grandfather. I would further add that, since November 12, 2021, I have been denied all motions to see or even talk to my children even for one (1) minute, denied access to all court transcripts, denied access to my children’s school and medical records, and denied discussing this case with anyone, including my own sister.

What legal citation (i.e., statute, regulation, court case) is most important for the proposition that you are likely to prevail on appeal?

Mackowski v. Mackowski, 317 N.J. Super 8, 11 (App. Div. 1998) stated: “[o]ur courts have repeatedly held that so drastic a decision as a change in child custody cannot be made on the basis of conflicting certifications” without witnesses or evidence. The Supreme Court held in Beck v. Beck, 86 N.J. 480 (1981) that the courts cannot enter a custody judgment without an evidentiary hearing. For custody decisions “to serve the best interests of the children,” Sacharow v. Sacharow, 177 N.J. 62, 80 (2003), a judge must come to a decision that “fosters, not hampers, a healthy parent child relationship.” Nufrio v. Nufrio, 341 N.J. Super. 548, 550 (App. Div. 2001). Interlocutory appeals may be heard “in the interest of justice.” R. 2:2–4; R. 2:5–6. Leave is granted “where … justice suggests the need for a review in advance of final judgment.” Appeal of Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 20 N.J. 398, 409 (1956). Refusing to follow N.J.S.A. 9:2–4, the trial court stripped my constitutional parental rights for years without recourse.