Judge Thomas Cahraman of Riverside, CA; dimwitted loser

The state of California presented Thomas H. Cahraman with a law license in 1992 after he graduated from the University of California Berkeley School of Law.

Former Gov. Gray Davis was duped into appointing Tommy as a Riverside County Superior Court Judge in 2001. Tommy did not get the appointment because he was the most qualified attorney in the greater Riverside area. He received it because he had proven to be a reliable lackey for the local political hacks.

In one matter, Tommy was assigned to preside over a case involving a mentally impaired 33-year-old woman who accused her father of raping her. Despite the allegations of rape, Tommy in his infinite ignorance ordered that the woman had to participate in joint counseling sessions with him, over the strenuous objections of the woman’s mother, her conservator.

In granting the father’s request for joint counseling sessions, Dimwitted Tommy made the following moronic comment.

• “So here I am not knowing if he had sex with his daughter but finding there’s not enough evidence to say that he did.”
• “And then if I have the visitation forced, then in case I’m wrong and he did have sex with his daughter, then I’m making her visit with her molester.”
• “I don’t like that very much, if that’s what it is. But I don’t think that’s what it is.”
• “I think he probably didn’t have sex with his daughter.”

Shortly after Tommy issued his asinine joint counseling sessions order, the woman’s mother appealed the ruling. In reversing Tommy’s dimwitted order, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal said in part:

• “The statute does not similarly suggest the court has the power to force an unwanted visitor on the conservatee.”
• “We’re asked to decide whether the trial court’s statutory power to limit Navarrete’s personal rights to receive visitors extends to allowing the court to require a conservatee to receive a visitor she and her conservator insist she does not want to see.”
• “We are aware of no case reading the statute to allow a conservator or a court to require an adult conservatee to spend time with someone against their will, even a parent.”

The appellate court went on to say:

• “In the context of family law orders, the trial courts have no authority to order adult disabled children to visit with a parent.”
• “Navarrete is such a person, notwithstanding her disability, and the trial court’s attempt to intervene in the dispute between a disabled adult and her estranged father based on its own judgment about her best interests overstepped its role.”

As we speak (ca. January 2021), Tommy continues to practice his brand of jurisprudence as a Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two judge in Riverside, California.