Inside the hidden process that enabled armed agents to storm two San Marcos schools without a warrant, targeting a mother and her children—without warning, due process, or lawful authority.

San Marcos, California

Before a child is targeted for removal from school. Before strangers in police gear corner a minor without their parent present. Before a parent receives that gut-wrenching phone call—there is a sequence. A set of decisions. A shadow trail of paper and policy that leads to the school gate. But almost none of it is visible to the parent who will soon be accused, cornered, or erased.

This is the story behind the story—the hidden process that enabled a group of armed, unsworn individuals to enter Double Peak K–8 School and Mission Hills High School on May 1, 2025, and attempt to abduct a mother’s two children without a warrant, a valid custody order, or any notification to her in advance.

The First Trigger: A Parent’s Allegation

In high-conflict custody cases, the first move often comes from the other parent. In this case, her former spouse had previously been involved in domestic violence, yet secured the favor of a court system that now viewed her as “noncompliant.”

All it takes to activate the child abduction mechanism is one claim: “She won’t return the children.”

That claim doesn’t require proof. It doesn’t require a hearing. And it doesn’t require the accused parent to be present to respond.

Family court, particularly under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), allows such allegations to be pushed through private evaluators, minor’s counsel, and parenting coordinators who operate with immense power and almost no oversight. These actors are not bound by the Constitution. They are not accountable to juries. They simply write memos, recommendations, and “rescue orders” based on impressions—not evidence.

Bypassing Due Process

The mother was never notified of a pending removal. She was never summoned to court. She was not served. She was not allowed to present evidence or cross-examine anyone. She had no opportunity to respond or prepare.

That’s not just oversight—it’s a direct violation of her due process rights under the 14th Amendment.

Yet in the world of ADR, due process is treated as optional. Parenting coordinators, evaluators, and attorneys can effectively escalate a case behind closed doors and present a recommendation to the DA’s Child Abduction Unit without so much as a stamped court order.

The Illusion of a Court Order

In this case, no California judge signed a lawful custody order authorizing removal.

What the DA’s unit acted on was likely an ADR directive—a private agreement or professional report mislabeled as a “rescue order” or “return directive.”

But an agreement is not a judgment. A parenting coordinator’s opinion is not a warrant. And yet that’s exactly what these agents carried when they entered two public schools in tactical gear, recording children on personal cell phones, and attempting to persuade them to walk out without parental consent.

Who Notifies the DA?

It’s unclear exactly who contacted the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit, since the mother lives in San Diego County.

Was it a private evaluator? Minor’s counsel? Her ex’s attorney?

What is clear: the mother was never told. She was kept completely in the dark.

And when she asked local law enforcement on the scene about the attempted abduction, she was told that no warrant existed.

This raises major questions:

• Why did LA County agents travel across counties to detain children without jurisdiction?
• Why did San Marcos schools allow them access without any proof of lawful authority?
• Who gave the green light?

Legalized Ambush

By the time the daughter was pulled into a room at Mission Hills High School and falsely told her mother was going to jail, the operation was already in motion.

The school officials had collaborated. The DA agents were wearing guns. Her children were completely alone.

This wasn’t law enforcement. This was entrapment. And it was made possible by a system that lets private actors manipulate legal perception without ever stepping into a real courtroom.

No Hearing. No Judge. No Rights.

Not once was the mother offered the following:

• An emergency hearing
• Access to legal counsel
• Notification of alleged contempt or concealment
• The ability to present witnesses or evidence

She was excluded from her own case. And had her children not known to say “I don’t consent”, they may have been removed by strangers carrying cell phones and clipboards instead of badges and warrants.

Conclusion: The Machine Behind the Raid

This wasn’t an accident. It was a process—designed to function in silence.

It began with a complaint, passed through opaque ADR channels, rubber-stamped by silent bureaucrats, and executed by fake police with fake authority.

The mother was denied every constitutional protection owed to her as a parent.

And unless we dismantle this privatized, non-judicial machine posing as justice, what happened to her will keep happening to others.

Because in ADR:

• A custody complaint is treated like a criminal charge.
• A parenting plan becomes a weapon.
• And your child becomes a target.

Until the knock comes for you.

---

Support Independent Journalism
If you believe in fearless reporting, government accountability, and bold truth-telling—help fuel the fight. Your donation keeps investigative stories like this alive and independent.

👉 Donate now to support my work.
📬 Or subscribe for updates and exclusive content.
Every dollar helps expose corruption and demand better leadership.

🛑 Silence is compliance. Let’s make noise. Together.