When Judges Play Doctor:

Ignoring 99.9% Medical Certainty for 0.1% Doubt

On June 18th, the court ruled that a pregnant woman cannot be considered pregnant unless a judge agrees she is. Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently, in a twist of medical and judicial logic, it is now up to the courts — not doctors — to diagnose pregnancy.

Despite medical evidence and a 99.9% certainty from an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 22,000 babies that I was pregnant, Judge Mata chose to believe the 0.1% chance that my multiple positive pregnancy tests were due to something other than pregnancy. To add insult to injury, she has referred me to the Maricopa County Attorney for prosecution. Yes, you also read that correctly.

The ruling came just hours after we notified her of our intention to file a Notice for Change of Judge for Cause due to suspected judicial misconduct. Judge Mata’s father was present during the trial, which, while not illegal, raises serious concerns. He came to the hearing and sat with the opposing side, the “Justice for Clayton” cult, even allegedly commenting to them that he was “here for the shitshow.”

In an email sent to Judge Mata’s division, my attorney, David Gingras wrote, “Ms. Owens has obtained a video of at least one person making these claims, and that person claims to have directly communicated with Judge Mata’s father about this matter. If this claim is true, Ms. Owens believes this may warrant a change of judge for cause pursuant to Family Law Rule 6.1.”

David requested a direct response from Judge Mata to verify these claims by 5 PM the following day, when we planned to file our concerns with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Instead of answering his questions, she rushed to deliver her ruling, where she sided almost entirely with Clayton. This rushed decision reeked of a desperate attempt to secure her judgment before we could escalate the challenge to her impartiality.

The ruling defies logic, medical evidence, and even Clayton’s own version of what happened on the night of our one-night stand last May.

1. If he truly believed that what happened between us that night couldn’t have resulted in my pregnancy, why did he invite me over under false pretenses to take a pregnancy test he bought himself, in his presence, which came back positive? This kind of deception is considered fraud because he intentionally misled me.
2. After the test turned positive, why did he admit that he would say anything to convince me to have an abortion? Such manipulation is a form of coercion, as he was trying to pressure me into making a decision against my will. Since he’s so eager to have me reported to the Maricopa County Attorney, I guess I will be reporting him for those prosecutable offenses as well.
3. And why did he later claim, “if it ends up being my child, I’ve decided that either you’ll take 100% custody or it will be put up for adoption”?
4. Oh, and in case you’re wondering, I didn’t try to “trap” Clayton; he even admitted himself that he wanted to have sex with me, but that I didn’t want to sleep with him.

I had positive urine and blood pregnancy tests done at medical facilities, which Clayton’s side had official copies of after I signed a HIPAA waiver. Judge Mata noted, “Both parties agree the test was positive.” So why did her ruling punish me?!

It goes back to the 0.1% chance that Judge Mata chose to believe — that my positive pregnancy tests were due to something other than pregnancy. She speculated that horse tranquilizers could cause a positive HCG test, a claim that was not supported by any evidence. Seriously — Google says it’s not true. Although I have openly admitted to using ketamine treatment, which can be used as a horse tranquilizer, in a medical office for depression in the past, I haven’t had that treatment in years. It’s not uncommon, nor something I am ashamed of. This baseless speculation further highlights the judge’s willingness to grasp at straws to undermine my case.

She went even further to try to diminish my credibility by claiming that my HCG levels could be from a prior history of ovarian cancer. She stated, “Petitioner has a prior history of ovarian cancer that prompted the surgical removal of her right ovary.” This is an outright falsehood. Thankfully, I have both ovaries and have never had cancer. She also questioned whether I had taken HCG trigger shots, despite having no proof, and for good reason — I hadn’t.

When I found out I was pregnant, I was lost and didn’t know what to do. My depression worsened, making it nearly impossible to think clearly or make decisions. In the ruling, the judge wrote, “The Court finds failure to seek in person care for a high-risk pregnancy to be both unreasonable and uncreditable.” This cold assessment ignored the severe depression I was grappling with, which made every moment of my pregnancy an emotional battlefield.

In all honesty, the medical care choices I made weren’t what I would have chosen in ideal circumstances. If this had been an expected pregnancy, I would have definitely sought proper care. But the circumstances were far from ideal, and the way Clayton treated me was terrible, leading to a restraining order being granted against him. The judge’s opinion on what a “reasonable person” would have done doesn’t take this into account, nor does it recognize the immense pressure I was under.

Judge Mata then claimed that I have a “pattern of similar, if not identical behavior” and referred the case to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review. Really? This was the first and only paternity case I have filed! The legal issues involving two of my exes were entirely different. Yes, I was pregnant by both and had abortions, but the legal matters were unrelated to paternity. With one, it was a restraining order for stalking and violence. With the other, it was a civil case for abortion coercion and an order of protection for cyberstalking, which he never contested.

And of course, both of these exes have jumped on the “Justice for Clayton” bandwagon, flagrantly violating the protection orders I have against them. They want revenge on me and see this as their chance. They’re now part of this cult-like group, who has wholeheartedly embraced them as my ‘victims’, trying to smear my reputation and get their orders reversed.

Judge Mata, by claiming that “my behavior” is the problem in the Clayton case, is essentially siding with my two exes and accepting their false narratives as truth, despite having no knowledge of what actually happened with them. She doesn’t seem to grasp the differences, and by putting it in writing in a ruling, it doesn’t seem like she cares. She stated, “The petitioner’s actions amount to a misuse of the legal system, warranting further investigation.” Misuse of the legal system? Arizona law (A.R.S. § 25–806) clearly permits paternity cases to be initiated during pregnancy without any prerequisites. Her ruling suggests that any woman who files a paternity case can be punished if the court arbitrarily decides not to believe her, regardless of the medical evidence.

The overreach didn’t stop there. She allowed one of them to appear in court despite a clear and valid California (CLETS) Domestic Violence Restraining Order against him. This decision blatantly violated federal law. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) mandates that protective orders issued in one state must be honored in another, and she had no right to override such orders without the issuing court’s consent. Additionally, there was no valid subpoena, and his attorney had already said he wasn’t going to appear. Her actions not only disregarded the law but also put me in significant emotional distress. She tried to justify this by stating that “the Judicial Branch Security will ensure the safety of all parties while at the Northeast Facility,” a completely unacceptable and illegal dismissal of the protective order’s authority and my legal protections. And why did he need to be a witness for a 2023 paternity case when I hadn’t even seen him in 2018?

My goal was to find an amicable solution without involving the courts. In July, in an effort to resolve things privately, I spent $5,000 for an attorney to act as a mediator between me and Clayton. That didn’t work out.

I chose not to continue with a lawyer when I filed the case pro se on August 1st of last year because all I wanted was for the judge to force Clayton to take a paternity test, which the mediator didn’t have the power to do. That meant that from the time the case was initiated to December, when it was placed on the dismissal calendar, neither of us had any legal fees. When I was confirmed to no longer be pregnant, I took no further action.

Oddly enough, once the case was on the dismissal calendar, Clayton decided to hire counsel for the first time. When I then tried to dismiss the case, his side refused, and Judge Mata agreed with them. Now I’m being held responsible for his legal fees from December to present day, which are purportedly over a hundred thousand dollars. She took it one step further, even ruling that I am liable for fees accrued before he had an attorney, stating, “The petitioner is liable for the respondent’s costs incurred prior to obtaining legal counsel.” Huh? What fees did he have before he had hired a lawyer?

Amidst all this madness, there is a small victory that no one seems to be talking about: Judge Mata upheld the Order of Protection I have against Clayton. The decision was based on the “preponderance of evidence” that Judge Doody initially found warranted its issuance. Despite Clayton’s loud claims of a total win, this restraining order is crucial because it explicitly prevents him from “communicating or posting untrue or harassing comments online” and “causing others to communicate or post untrue or harassing comments” regarding me. Yet, he is actively breaking this order and inciting his followers against me.

My lawyer predicted the outcome of the case since Judge Mata had consistently ruled against me on every Motion filed from the very beginning. David knew we would have to appeal, and he’s confident that her decision will get overturned. But the emotional toll this ordeal has taken on me is immeasurable. The stress, anxiety, and depression have been unbearable, and exacerbated by a system that seems intent on breaking me. For Judge Mata’s father and Clayton’s supporters, apparently my suffering is just a spectacle.

At the end of the day, I can’t help but wonder: would the judge have allowed this to go on for months and months if Clayton and I were unknown and poverty-stricken? Would her father have shown up and sat with Clayton’s side if he weren’t a former ABC Bachelor?

Judge Mata’s ruling appears to be driven by the high-profile nature of the case and Clayton’s minor celebrity status. It appears to say that filing a paternity case while pregnant (which again, is allowed by Arizona law), then attempting to dismiss it after losing the pregnancy is“acting unreasonably when initiating litigation without basis or merit”. This precedent suggests that a woman can be punished for circumstances beyond her control. Should the tragedy of a lost pregnancy be met with legal retribution?

Here’s another scenario. In Maricopa County alone, approximately 25% of paternity cases filed each year result in the alleged father being excluded as the biological parent. This means thousands of women annually file paternity cases where DNA tests later prove the man is not the father. Are we seriously suggesting that these women should be sanctioned, forced to pay attorney’s fees, and denied the ability to dismiss their cases? Is being wrong truly “fraud”? The court’s mission is to seek the truth and ensure justice, not to penalize women for genuine errors or the devastation of a miscarriage.

I am being punished and threatened with the possibility of criminal charges for a case I was fully entitled to bring forward. This ruling sends a terrifying message: any woman who files a paternity case can be prosecuted if she has a miscarriage, attempts to drop the legal proceedings, and the court arbitrarily decides not to believe she was pregnant in the first place, regardless of the evidence — even though Arizona law (A.R.S. § 25–806) has no prerequisites for filing a paternity case. I had more proof of pregnancy than many other women who file these, with multiple positive tests taken at medical facilities and acknowledged by Judge Mata herself. But apparently, it doesn’t matter what your doctor says — only what your judge thinks.