Maricopa County, AZ Arizona's family court system has seen dysfunction before, but Judge Charlene Jackson has turned judicial misconduct into an art form. Her March 2025 restraining order against a protective mother wasn't a legal filing it was a retaliatory manifesto dripping with bias, contradictions, and self-incrimination. It didn't protect anyone. It exposed her.
Erin Gerlach exhausted every lawful avenue to protect her daughter, Brooklyn, from documented abuse. And what did she get? A judge who couldn't even establish jurisdiction properly, yet issued ruling after ruling like she was above the Constitution.
Jackson ignored evidence like it was optional, tossed out procedure like it was inconvenient, and treated Gerlach's case like a personal grudge match. Her courtroom wasn't a place for justice , it was a stage for unchecked ego, where a mothers attempt to shield her child was not only dismissed, but criminalized and weaponized against her.
According to Gerlach, this wasn't a custody dispute. It was a legal ambush. The law wasn't applied, it was twisted, weaponized, and used to silence a mother who dared to challenge the system. And the system? It didn't just fail. It helped.
Meth, Molestation, and Misconduct: The Charlene Jackson Docket
Jacksons rulings read like a dystopian script.
She awarded custody to a father indicted for molesting his own children in another state.
She granted sole legal decision-making to a parent who tested positive for several substances including methamphetamine, colluding with an attorney to conceal the drug test results from the other parent. The buried lab report only surfaced when a parent advocacy group reviewed the case file and discovered the concealed evidence.
In one of the most appalling and indefensible rulings to ever come out of Maricopa County's family court, Judge Charlene Jackson granted unsupervised visitation to a man who was not the biological father of a non-verbal, special needs child, despite overwhelming evidence that the child was the victim of ongoing sexual assault. Law enforcement uncovered hundreds, possibly thousands, of sexually explicit images of this child and other minors in the mans possession, triggering a criminal investigation. Yet, Jackson still forced the NON-VERBAL child into regular phone contact with his abuser, while forcing the child to have unsupervised visitation with him. This wasn't just judicial negligence, it was cruelty. Jackson also denied a motion to continue a scheduled court date, despite being provided a letter from a doctor stating that the child required urgent medical attention. As a result of being forced to prioritize the courts schedule over the child's healthcare needs, the necessary medical procedure was delayed, leading to a long-term medical complication that could have been prevented.
There are dozens of similar cases we could list. This is just a typical Tuesday for Jackson, whose biased rulings reflect a documented pattern of ignoring credible evidence, disregarding child safety, and punishing protective parents who dare to challenge abuse. Her courtroom has become a place where due process is sidelined and vulnerable children are placed at risk.
This is not just misconduct. Its institutional betrayal, an embarrassment to Arizona's Judiciary and its happening in plain sight.
The Filing That Lit a Fire
On March 24, 2025, Judge Jackson filed a personal restraining order against Gerlach, citing eight alleged incidents of harassment between November 18, 2023 and November 12, 2024. That entire timeframe overlaps with Jacksons active role as the judge presiding over Gerlach's custody case. The case was finally reassigned November 12, 2024, within hours of Gerlach presenting evidence of Jacksons misconduct to the Arizona Supreme Court.
If Jackson truly believed she was being harassed, judicial ethics required her to recuse herself, not continue issuing rulings, including one-word denials of Gerlach's motions and an order requiring her to pay the opposing parties attorneys fees while she was self-represented at that time.
In her restraining order application, Jackson acknowledged that Gerlach's social media accounts had been deleted or made private as of November 2024. Yet, she waited until March 2025, four months later, to file the order. The delay in filing, combined with the fact that the restraining order was submitted on the same day and at the same location as the opposing party in Gerlach's custody case, has added to speculation about Jacksons true motives behind the filing. This timing has also intensified existing allegations that Judge Jackson and the opposing party may have acted as co-conspirators throughout the case to deprive Gerlach of her rights.
Judge Jackson didn't just file a restraining order; she filed a confession. In her attempt to muzzle a protective mother, she made sworn statements under penalty of perjury that do more damage to her own credibility than any critic ever could. Its like she walked into court, threw her own ethics into the trash, lit her integrity on fire, and said, Here's more proof I shouldn't be on the bench. She wanted to play victim, but instead she played herself. Filing in her personal capacity stripped her of judicial immunity, and now those statements are fair game.
She wanted to intimidate Gerlach into silence. Instead, she handed the public a smoking gun.
The restraining order isn't protection, its projection. Jacksons filing didn't silence anyone; it lit a fire. Her own words, now on record, contradict her rulings, expose her bias, and validate the very misconduct she's been accused of. She didn't just tell on herself; she gift-wrapped the evidence and signed it under oath. The best part? She dragged her co-conspirators under the bus with her.
What Jackson characterizes as harassment is, in reality, lawful advocacy, protected by the Constitution, supported by public records, and rooted in lived experience. Gerlach's actions reflect a civic duty to speak out against injustice and stand up for what is right, along with her duty as a mother to protect all children, including her own.
Family Ties and False Denials: The Paige Jackson Cover-Up
One of the most brazen contradictions in Jacksons sworn statements involves her own niece, Paige Jackson. In her restraining order, Jackson categorically denied ever presiding over a case involving Paige. But screenshots from the official Maricopa County Superior Court docket tell a different story, one that's now fueling allegations of perjury and conflict of interest.
Supporting Evidence: A screenshot from the Maricopa County Superior Court docket lists the Judicial officer assigned to Paige Jacksons case as Judge Charlene Jackson, contradicting Jacksons sworn denials.
A growing number of litigants are sounding the alarm over missing or manipulated audio recordings from hearings presided over by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Charlene Jackson. The common denominator? The For The Record (FTR) system the official courtroom audio platform was allegedly muted, trimmed, or mysteriously erased during pivotal moments of testimony and judicial rulings.
In her restraining order filing, Jackson tried to deflect from the accusation, stating:
She accused me of intentionally muting the recording system in the courtroom even though I do not control the recording system in the courtroom.
But that denial hasn't held up under scrutiny. Motions, affidavits, and formal complaints from unrelated cases describe eerily similar incidents, suggesting that Gerlach's experience wasn't an outlier, but part of a broader pattern. Attorneys and litigants have documented instances where FTR recordings were incomplete, abruptly cut off, or missing entirely.
In one case, Jackson allegedly stated she had a personal interest in resolving the matter. When the litigant and their attorney requested the audio, the final two minutes, where Jacksons statement was made, had been erased or trimmed.
Gerlach's case is particularly damning. She accused Jackson of muting the FTR system at the start of a hearing in which Jackson openly stated she had intentionally placed a jurisdictional ruling in a non-appealable minute entry, effectively blocking Gerlach from challenging the decision. Jackson then proceeded with the hearing and issued orders, despite having already been served with a Notice of Appeal, which legally divested her of jurisdiction. That portion of the FTR record is missing. When Gerlach contacted court security, she was told the footage from the courtroom was unavailable. She documented the incident in pleadings filed directly into Jacksons division. Jackson never responded to the allegations until she filed the retaliatory restraining order.
And the pattern doesn't end there.
In another documented case, Jackson denied a motion to continue a contempt trial for a seriously ill attorney not based on law, but on what she described as a gut reaction. She dismissed the attorneys documented illness as fortuitous, implying it was a delay tactic. The attorney was forced to represent a litigant for a contempt trial while visibly ill, taking multiple breaks during proceedings. Jackson refused to allow co-counsel to speak or participate, leaving the litigant without adequate representation and violating her right to due process
When Gerlach publicly accused Jackson of issuing rulings based on gut feelings, Jackson denied this ever happening, called Gerlach a liar and claimed Gerlach's accusation amounted to harassment. But public records, including a Motion for a Change of Judge (which was granted) filed by a well-respected attorney, confirm that Jackson did, in fact, cite her gut reaction as the basis for denying the continuance. The same motion documents Jacksons refusal to accommodate the ill attorney and her decision to proceed despite clear medical evidence. That motion is a matter of public record which Gerlach obtained and submitted as evidence.
Supporting Evidence: Affidavit filed under oath confirming the final two minutes of an FTR recording were erased or trimmed.
The Warrant Lie: Jacksons False Claim Under Oath and the Trauma She Authorized
In her restraining order filing, Judge Charlene Jackson made a bold and verifiably false statement under penalty of perjury and while identifying herself as a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge:
She claims I have issued warrants for arrest which is untrue as I have issued 1 warrant in my career as a superior court judge.
That wasn't just a distortion. It was a flat-out lie, delivered under oath, while portraying herself as a victim of harassment in order to commit harassment herself.
Court records directly contradict Jacksons sworn statement. Not only has she issued multiple warrants in unrelated cases, but she signed more than one warrant specifically in Gerlach's case. Gerlach has produced a redacted copy of one such warrant bearing Jacksons signature as proof that Jacksons denial isn't just inaccurate, its a documented falsehood.
And the consequences weren't theoretical. One of those warrants was executed over Christmas break, resulting in the violent removal of children from their home. SWAT officers arrived with guns drawn. Children were ripped from their parents in what Jackson knew was not a true emergency. The trauma inflicted in that moment will last a lifetime.
What makes this even more egregious is that in this particular case, Jackson had already been served with a mandate from the Arizona Court of Appeals divesting her of jurisdiction. She was legally barred from issuing further orders. But she did it anyway, including issuing warrants, continuing hearings, and ignoring appellate authority as if the law didn't apply to her.
This isn't just judicial overreach. Its a judge operating outside her legal bounds, lying under oath, and inflicting irreversible harm on families. And she did it using taxpayer-funded resources, diverting law enforcement from real emergencies to enforce retaliatory orders that lacked legal standing. That's not just misconduct. Its abuse of power with public consequences including egregious waste of taxpayer funds. And now, thanks to the paper trail she tried to deny, the evidence is catching up.
Supporting Evidence: A redacted copy of a warrant issued by Judge Charlene D. Jackson with her signature
Judge Jacksons Restraining Order Reads Like a Confession And Critics aren't Backing Down
In her restraining order filing, Judge Charlene Jackson rattled off a laundry list of accusations she claims Gerlach made against her, ranging from destruction of evidence and witness intimidation to election fraud, impersonation, and conspiracy to commit child abuse.
Jacksons exact words:
Defendant accused me of destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, extortion, perjury, violation of civil rights, conspiracy to commit child abuse and child endangerment, collusion with court-appointed providers, allowing litigants to submit fraudulent evidence, election fraud, election interference, colluding with the judicial nominating committee and judicial performance review, destruction of or concealing public records, filing false disclosures, lying on her application for appointment, providing false instruments for filing, numerous conspiracy charges, stealing someone's LinkedIn profile and impersonating them online, issuing warrants knowing the affidavits were falsified, and abusing her power over gut feelings and misconduct in office.
Its a dramatic list, but here's the problem: Gerlach has never denied making those accusations. In fact, She stands by every one of them and she's backed them with a growing body of corroborating evidence, including sworn affidavits, court filings, victim testimony, courtroom recordings, and public records that paint a damning portrait of Jacksons conduct on the bench.
These weren't offhand remarks. Gerlach submitted her accusations formally, through motions and affidavits filed directly in Jacksons courtroom over the course of nearly two years. Jackson read them. She presided over the case. And she responded with nothing more than blanket denials.
And that's where Jacksons credibility collapses. If she truly believed Gerlach's accusations were harassing, defamatory, or improper, why did she allow them to continue for nearly two years? Why did she wait until after the fact, then reframe those same accusations as harassment in a retaliatory restraining order?
Jacksons attempt to retroactively criminalize protected legal speech isn't just hypocritical, its procedurally indefensible.
And Gerlach isn't alone. Letters submitted to Governor Katie Hobbs, Attorney General Kris Mayes and a petition for federal investigation have echoed Gerlach's claims. These sources cite Jacksons pattern of issuing rulings without hearings, suppressing critical evidence, placing children in the custody of their abusers, demonstrating bias, retaliating against litigants who file complaints, failing to follow Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure, violating Constitutional Rights, and enabling custody outcomes based on perjury and fraud. One affidavit even documents Jackson issuing warrants despite knowing the supporting affidavits contained false statements.
These sources cite Jacksons pattern of issuing rulings without hearings, suppressing critical evidence, retaliating against litigants who file complaints, and enabling custody outcomes based on perjury and fraud. One affidavit even documents Jackson issuing warrants despite knowing the supporting affidavits contained false statements.
Jacksons strategy appears to be simple: deny everything, label critics as conspiracy theorists, and hope the paper trail disappears. But it hasn't. And the more she tries to discredit Gerlach, the more her own rulings, filings, and contradictions validate the allegations.
This isn't just a he-said-she-said. Its a judge under fire, facing a chorus of documented complaints, and trying to rewrite the narrative and silence a protective mother with a restraining order. But the evidence isn't cooperating. And neither is the public.
Arizona Judges Are Public Officials. Their Misconduct Is Not a Private Matter.
Gerlach had every right to believe and publicly reference the Phoenix New Times article dated December 22, 2022, which quoted Judge Charlene Jackson directly. In that piece, Jackson identified herself as both a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge and an attorney representing the Hualapai Tribe near Kingman confirming her dual roles in her own words. This wasn't hearsay. It was a public admission.
Upon reviewing Rule 3.10 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct, Gerlach reasonably concluded that Jacksons conduct violated judicial ethics:
A judge shall not practice law. A judge may act pro se and may, without compensation, give legal advice to and draft or review documents for a member of the judges family.
The rule is unequivocal: sitting judges are prohibited from practicing law, no exceptions for side work, tribal representation, or consulting. The restriction exists to preserve impartiality, prevent conflicts of interest, and maintain public trust in the judiciary.
Jacksons decision to engage in legal practice while holding judicial office was a breach of the very code she's sworn to uphold. And because she disclosed it in a public article, she cannot accuse Gerlach, or anyone else, of harassment for citing it. Gerlach's statements were based on publicly available facts and a reasonable interpretation of the law.
Judges Are Public Officials Under Arizona Law
Under the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution, criticism of a judges conduct, especially when based on public records, court filings, or published articles is not defamation or harassment, but protected speech.
As public officials, they are subject to greater scrutiny, reduced expectations of privacy, and broader protections for public criticism under the First Amendment.
Calling out misconduct backed by public record and ethical rules is not harassment. Its protected speech. Its accountability that's long overdue.
How Is Judge Jackson Still on the Bench?
Lets call it what it is: a systemic failure of accountability.
The evidence against Jackson includes false statements under oath, abuse of judicial authority, retaliatory filings, and constitutional violations affecting children and families. So why is she still presiding over cases involving vulnerable litigants?
How does a judge who fabricates allegations, weaponizes restraining orders to silence lawful dissent, and disregards due process still hold a gavel?
The answer is as disturbing as the question: Arizona's judicial oversight mechanisms are broken. And every day Jackson remains on the bench, the risk to families grows and so does Arizona's liability.
Attorneys, advocates, and affected parents are demanding a transparent, independent review of Jacksons fitness to serve. The calls for disciplinary action, and independent criminal investigation are growing.
Retaliation Backfired: Now the Receipts Are Rolling In
Judge Jackson may have thought her restraining order would silence scrutiny. Instead, it detonated it.
Gerlach and other parents aren't just speaking out, they're armed with receipts: documentation, transcripts, sworn affidavits, and evidence that hasnt even been made public yet. What's already out there is just the tip of the iceberg.
Her attempt to silence victims has backfired spectacularly, drawing critical attention not only to her own conduct but to the broader dysfunction of the Maricopa County Family Court. The floodgates are open. And the public is watching.
If Jackson thought this was the end of the story, she's about to learn it was only the prologue.