Gauillame Garreau has spent countless hours and over $150,000 to find his son, Maxmilien, who was abducted to Kazakhstan in March 2024. Judge Michelle Tong permitted the child to be taken on a two-week trip to Kazakhstan in 2024 by his mother, Sana Onayeva-Garreau, who had a prior restraining order against her and a documented history of abuse. Garreau presented evidence that Onayeva had transferred $230,000 in cash to her brother and warned the court that Kazakhstan does not recognize the Hague Convention on returning children in international abductions. Judge Tong “breezily” dismissed Garreau’s concerns about how difficult an international legal battle would be for him if his child were abducted. Maximilien has been missing for nearly two years since Tong’s fateful decision.
In January 2025, Onayeva tried to leave Kazakhstan for Kyrgyzstan after a juvenile court in Almaty ruled in favor of Garreau that their child was abducted, because all three are U.S. citizens. Onayeva was blocked from crossing the border because she did not have exit papers for Maximilien and her visa to Kazakhstan has expired. Onayeva is wanted by Interpol but remains in hiding in Kazakhstan, changing her phone numbers and addresses regularly. In March 2025, Garreau even traveled to Kazakhstan with two investigators from the district attorney’s office to legally take custody of Maximilien, but Onayeva gave false addresses to the court, and local law enforcement failed to locate them. Garreau has held at least two international press conferences through bilingual attorneys to plead for the return of his son.
Garreau has contacted politicians and government agencies at every level of government countless times, from the governor’s office to the White House. Even his tracked mail to the governor’s office sat uncollected at the post office because they informed him that they didn’t have staff or budget to collect it. His numerous attempts to federal agencies finally bore fruit this year when the U.S. consulate informed him that in recent discussions between the United States and Kazakhstan, the return of abducted American children, including Maximilien, has been an important factor in normalizing relations. U.S. lawmakers are also considering repealing the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which would normalize trade relations between the two countries. U.S. officials increasingly view unresolved abduction cases as part of the broader diplomatic package that must be addressed before relations can fully solidify. We reached out to Representative Brian Mast (R-Fla.), the House Foreign Affairs Committee chair, who is leading a congressional delegation to Kazakhstan in March, regarding Maximilien’s return, but did not receive a response at the time of publication.
The emotional strength that Garreau harnesses to continue his search comes from creative and local sources. Weekly, he meets with French-speaking prayer groups, as well as online communities for solo parents and people navigating relationships with high-conflict partners. He also volunteers regularly with organizations such as Second Harvest and Sunday Friends, which helps him stay grounded during this overwhelming period. Writing has become another essential outlet. He’s close to finishing his second memoir about his journeys, adapting his work into short films, including a recently released video based on his book Around the World for My Son: Love Letters.
Garreau’s case and other controversial rulings by Judge Tong have even sparked a victim’s group of “litigants” who found each other through the Robing Room, the Yelp equivalent for judges. Many have filed official misconduct complaints to the 11-member California Commission on Judicial Performance, an independent state agency that handles judicial complaints, but most were informed their cases were closed with no further details. Since 1995, only one San Francisco Superior Court Judge received public discipline. One inside source reported that Judge Tong accounted for one-quarter of all judicial complaints filed in the San Francisco Superior Court in the last 15 years, though she’s only been on the bench for five years. The victims’ group had a mix of emotions, from anger to sadness, when they heard Judge Tong would automatically be reelected because Anthony Tartaglio withdrew his judicial challenge for her seat on Feb. 10.
Judge Tong had the most comments of all the San Francisco Superior Court judges on the Robing Room. Out of 33 comments, only three were positive, with an average rating of 2.2 out of 5 stars. The Robing Room comments reflect a recurring pattern we heard from the victims’ group, where restraining orders were not granted in serial abuse cases and victims were asked to pay large fees to their abusers. One victim had to move out of San Francisco for their own safety. These patterns were also supported in court documents among the victims’ group.
The Robing Room comments below highlight the most pervasive themes in her judicial conduct since she joined the bench in 2021, including “worst judge”, “cruel to victims”, “biased”, “rude”, “does not know the law”, “dangerous”, and “takes sadistic pleasure in her judicial power”.
One winning litigant noted:
Even I was surprised by how poorly Judge Tong treated my ex-wife. She took everything I asserted as the absolute truth and treated my ex like a pathological liar. It was very strange, almost surreal to see such sexist behavior. BTW – if Judge Tong ever reads this – thank you, but my ex was actually telling the truth and had a lot of evidence that you didn’t seem to actually read. You acted like my personal defense lawyer, much appreciated!! Submitted on July 22, 2024.
According to Stop Crime Action’s most recent Judges Report Card, Judge Tong received a “Failing” grade, based on court watch observers, case research and confidential surveys of trial attorneys. Stop Crime highlighted several other key rulings, including:
– Judge Tong denied a restraining order for a teenager being harassed by notorious serial stalker Bill Gene Hobbs who was released back to her neighborhood; he was later sentenced to prison for a series of sexual assaults and battery against nine women. Judge Tong denied nearly half of the restraining order requests in her courtroom, significantly less than the average in San Francisco — putting many victims at risk.
– Judge Tong ruled an abuse victim who suffered a “fractured eye socket and broken nose” from her ex was only entitled to $555 in contrast to $32,000 ordered in criminal court, which has a higher burden of proof. The ex is serving seven years to life in prison for the convicted abuse.
Even with all of these complaints and controversial rulings, Judge Tong was promoted from Family Court to Criminal Court in early 2025. The district attorney’s office filed en masse objections to her competency in Department 12, which resulted in her disqualification from Criminal Court. Consequently, Judge Tong is relegated to civil harassment and traffic court.
Why did presiding Judge Rochelle East promote Judge Tong to Criminal Court given her controversial track record? There’s little transparency on how assignments are made by presiding judges, who are elected every two years by their judicial peers currently serving on the San Francisco Superior Court. The actual numbers of judicial complaints toward particular judges are also difficult to procure, further clouding the assignment process. Early in 2026, Judge Begert was removed from presiding over Drug Court, which was originally designed for low-level, nonviolent offenses related to addiction. Instead, serial felons were approved to the program by three-fold, while increasing recidivism and impacting public safety.
Transparency about the workings of the San Francisco Superior Court continues to be a challenge. To date, the San Francisco Superior Court has failed to submit criminal court resolution numbers to the California Judicial Council since 2022, citing a new case management system, even though it is required by state law. Enforcement falls to California state leadership.
In 2025, the California Assembly Elections Committee advanced ACA 8, authored by Chair Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), which would have allowed uncontested justices of the California Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal to skip appearing on the ballot for their retention elections. This mirrors the rule already in place for superior court judges at the county level, under which 19 incumbent San Francisco judges will be automatically reelected without voter review in June 2026. The measure failed to gain broader support in the full California Assembly and was later amended to focus on congressional redistricting.