Cast of Characters

A reference guide to individuals and institutions appearing in this investigation.

(All identifying details of the minor are withheld for privacy.)

Brenna Gano — Protective mother and central narrator. Raises concerns about evaluator/therapist pipelines, private judging, and ADA/communication barriers. Seeks transparency and a child-safety-first process.

Paul Anthony McNab — Former spouse; senior Silicon Valley technology executive. His resources and legal representation illustrate the financial and procedural imbalance at the heart of the case.

Jacob (pseudonym) — Minor child at the center of custody and therapy decisions. Appears in reports and recommendations; all references anonymized in accordance with privacy standards.

Hon. Catherine Gallagher (Ret.) / JAMS — Retired judge who presided over a paid private “judicial reference” through JAMS in February 2022. Consent, scope, and the line between mediation and adjudication remain in dispute.

Family Court Services (FCS) / Samantha S. Verpoon — Court-connected social worker and author of the initial 2018 FCS report. Alleged to have shaped the early narrative later repeated in rulings and evaluations.

Dr. Frank Davis (Court-Appointed §730 Evaluator) — Psychologist retained for the 2020 custody evaluation. Findings and interpretation became central to later therapy directives and custody decisions.

Dr. Matthew (“Matt”) Sullivan — Therapeutic consultant and AFCC-affiliated professional cited in referrals and coordination models. His role links the case to national “high-conflict” training programs.

Mindy Dirks, LMFT (Parenting Coach/Therapist) — Private therapist introduced through referral. Billing patterns, timing of sessions, and training lineage are elements under review.

Eva Wexler (Reunification Therapist) — Retained for reunification therapy. Brenna contends the treatment was contraindicated by prior evaluations; session structure and outcomes are under examination.

Philip Silvestri / Stajonne Mialocw Montalvo (Attorneys) — Counsel involved during 2018–2022 phases. Allegations include coercive negotiation tactics and “judge-said” representations surrounding informal agreements and private judging.

AFCC — Association of Family and Conciliation Courts — International professional network connecting evaluators, therapists, and court consultants. Cited in public trainings, conference materials, and cross-referrals.

JAMS — Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services — Private dispute-resolution provider offering mediation, arbitration, and court-appointed referees (“private judges”) in California custody cases.

Referral Network Snapshot

Court / FCS
   ↓ (refers)
Evaluator (§730)
   ↓ (recommends)
Therapist / Parenting Coach
   ↓ (coordinates)
Parenting Coordinator / Consultant
   ↓ (escalates)
Private Judge (JAMS)
   ↓ (returns)
Back to Court → New Order → New Fee

All roles and relationships are presented as documented in filings, correspondence, or professional listings. This sidebar is for contextual reference within the investigative series “Inside the California Custody Cartel.”

Sources & Documentation

All documents are retained in Father & Co.’s investigative archive and cited for transparency and verification. Confidential identifiers and sensitive personal data have been redacted to protect privacy.

---

Primary Case Documents — Brenna Gano v. Paul McNab (San Mateo County, CA)

1. Family Court Services (FCS) Report – November 2018
   Initial custody evaluation introducing allegations of “yelling” and “brainwashing.” Foundation of the behavioral narrative later adopted by the court.
2. Minute Orders – November 16, 2018
   Judicial orders adopting FCS recommendations as factual findings.
3. Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH) – December 7, 2018
   Establishes the record that underpinned all later psychological evaluations.
4. Email Chain: “Huge Win with Phil” – December 27, 2018–January 2, 2019
   Correspondence among Philip Silvestri, Yvonne Seeley, and Amy Sherman revealing collusion to sell the Woodside family home prior to discovery.
5. Declaration of Private Child Custody Evaluator (Dr. Frank Davis) – September 28, 2020
   Confirms appointment under California Evidence Code §730 and a $40,000 retainer.
6. Child Custody Agreement – January 10, 2022
   Filed stipulation showing Brenna’s intent to cooperate with custody terms before private judging.
7. Dr. Anna Budayr Psychological Evaluation – March 7, 2022
   Original and edited versions demonstrate suppression of favorable findings (ADHD/PTSD diagnosis; no personality disorder).
8. JAMS Conference Records (Judge Catherine Gallagher, Ret.) – February 15, 2022
   Documentation of private judging conducted without ADA accommodations.
9. Income & Expense Declaration (I&E) – June 25, 2024
   Pages 25–26 show mandatory therapy and evaluator fees totaling tens of thousands of dollars, evidencing the financial exploitation loop.
10. Correspondence with Mindy Dirks and Dr. Matthew Sullivan – 2021–2022
    Emails and invoices confirming coordinated referrals within the AFCC network.

---

Legal and Statutory References

• California Business & Professions Code §2052 — Defines unlicensed medical practice; cited for judicial overreach in ordering treatment.
• California Evidence Code §730 — Limits judicial authority to licensed evaluations.
• California Penal Code §1368 — Cited for contrast regarding competency evaluations in criminal cases.
• California Family Code §§2030–2032 — Requires parity in access to legal representation; violated when McNab outspent Gano 3:1.
• California Family Code §4053(g) — Mandates maintaining a child’s standard of living post-separation.
• Piqui’s Law (AB 957, 2023) — Prohibits reunification therapy and coercive “treatment” models.
• Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12132) — Requires state courts to provide reasonable accommodations for litigants with disabilities.
• Arizona Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders (2025 Report) — Legislative finding of referral rackets identical to the California AFCC model.

---

Professional and Organizational Sources

• Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) — Identified as the professional network linking evaluators, therapists, and consultants in family court.
• High Conflict Institute (Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.) — Developed the “high-conflict personality” framework used to justify expanded therapy orders.
• JAMS (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) — Private judging firm overseeing the February 2022 proceeding.
• Viavi Solutions (NASDAQ: VIAV) — Employer of Paul McNab; cited for financial context and power imbalance.

---

Transcripts and Correspondence

• Call Summary: “Family Court Challenges, Parental Alienation, and Legal Advocacy” – June 9, 2024
  Verified testimony from Brenna Gano and advocate Renata M.
• Closed-Caption Transcript: Conference with Renata and Brenna – October 2025
  Confirms consistency of timeline and factual detail with court documents.
• Gmail: “Fwd: Dr. Budayr’s First Draft” – February 2022
  Demonstrates suppression of favorable psychological findings.
• Gmail: “Fwd: Stajonne Mialocq Montalvo” – March 2022
  Links between legal counsel and therapeutic actors.
• Legal Analysis Memorandum: “Systemic Issues in Family Court and Case Strategy” – November 2025
  Internal research establishing systemic ADA noncompliance in custody litigation.

---

Secondary Context Sources

• California Judicial Council Report (2024) — Data showing that over 40% of custody cases involve court-ordered psychological evaluations.
• AFCC Annual Conference Programs (2019–2024) — Establishing professional overlaps among named evaluators and consultants.
• Public Statements: Dr. Bandy X. Lee (2023–2024) — Comparative case illustrating the national replication of California’s model.
• Father & Co. internal investigative files — Cross-reference of AFCC-affiliated case studies and financial patterns in California, Arizona, and New York.

---

Visual Assets (Father & Co. Originals)

1. The California Custody Loop: How Conflict Becomes Currency — Infographic visualizing the AFCC referral system.
2. The ADA Gap — Split-panel comparison of legal requirement vs. court practice.
3. Where Justice Went — Pie chart showing distribution of custody-related expenses.
4. Case Study Quote Cards — Brenna Gano’s first-person statements.
5. 2018–2025 Timeline — Visual chronology of custody events.

---

Archival Integrity

All documents have been independently reviewed and timestamped in Father & Co.’s investigative repository.
Metadata and email headers are preserved for evidentiary verification.
Citations conform to the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code for accuracy, fairness, and transparency.

Legal References & Statutory Framework

This reference list links to authoritative sources explaining the statutes and regulations cited throughout the investigation.

---

Family Law & Custody Procedures

Ordered Counseling — California Family Code § 3190
Authorizes a court to order counseling under limited post-dispute conditions.
🔗 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3190

Custody-Evaluation Standards — Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 5.220
Sets statewide evaluator standards and ethical guidelines.
🔗 https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/five/rule5_220

Family Code § 3026 — No “Family Reunification Services” in Custody Proceedings
Clarifies that welfare-style reunification programs do not apply in private custody cases.
🔗 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=3026

Private Judging / Judicial Reference — CCP § 638
Allows parties to stipulate to a private referee or judge, requiring mutual consent and limited scope.
🔗 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=638

---

Disability Rights & Access to Justice

ADA Effective Communication (Primary Consideration) — 28 C.F.R. § 35.160
Requires courts to ensure effective communication for individuals with disabilities.
🔗 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/35.160

ADA Requests in California Courts — Rule 1.100
Explains how to request accommodations under the ADA within California judicial proceedings.
🔗 https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/one/rule1_100

---

Child Protection & Reunification Reform

SB 331 (2023) — “Piqui’s Law: Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act”
Creates child-safety training standards and limits coercive reunification therapy programs.
🔗 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB331

---

Ethical & Professional Oversight

California Business & Professions Code § 2052 — Unauthorized Practice of Medicine
Criminalizes directing or prescribing treatment without a medical license.
🔗 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=2052

---

Father & Co. encourages readers, advocates, and policymakers to review these statutes directly. Understanding where legal authority ends—and where medical judgment begins—is essential to preventing systemic abuse of process.