Referee (now Judge) Victoria Elsmore - Second Judicial District
Family-court referee elevated to district judge in 2025. Public record and plaintiff reports raise concerns about rubber-stamped HROs, process defects, and access-to-justice impacts in Ramsey County.
A Documented Pattern
Victoria Elsmore served as a family-court referee in Ramsey County before Governor Walz appointed her to the district court on April 23, 2025. Public bios note experience across dissolution, custody, support, OFP, and HRO calendars. In the Madder v. Ramsey archive, multiple entries allege a pattern of form-driven HRO processing that tolerated incomplete or defective paperwork, and orders issued without clear judicial countersignature or adequate findings.
These allegations, if borne out, implicate due-process requirements routinely emphasized in judicial training for OFP/HRO matters (notice, opportunity to be heard, evidentiary record, and findings tied to statute). This dossier compiles those concerns and points to the specific filings where they are raised for verification.
Procedure, Fees, and Access
Plaintiffs and respondents have reported systemic friction on the Ramsey County civil-restraining-order calendars: duplicated filing fees, contradictory fee-waiver handling, and orders issued from packets that lacked the signatures or findings required to survive appellate review. The archive alleges dozens of civil HROs at $300 each were processed despite facial defects—effectively taxing access while diminishing scrutiny.
“Form orders without findings aren’t justice; they are paperwork that looks like justice.”
While neighboring jurisdictions emphasize minimizing financial barriers in sensitive proceedings, the record here describes a culture of speed and throughput over individualized adjudication—one that especially burdens self-represented, disabled, or low-income parties. Readers should review linked exhibits and docket materials to evaluate each instance on the merits.
Observed Calendar Practices
Reported practices associated with Elsmore’s calendar include: reliance on pre-printed forms; limited articulation of factual findings mapped to statute; and acceptance of packets later challenged as incomplete (missing countersignature or adequate service proofs). Training resources stress that OFP/HRO orders require an evidentiary basis, opportunity to be heard (including cross-examination), and findings that meet statutory elements—standards that, when not observed, produce void or voidable orders.
Post-appointment, Elsmore now exercises broader authority as a district judge. Given the allegations summarized here, continued public scrutiny and rigorous adherence to OFP/HRO procedure are critical to safeguard due process.
Why It Matters
Civil restraining orders carry immediate consequences: firearm prohibitions, custody and housing fallout, employment barriers, and reputational harm. When courts prioritize speed over statutory findings—or impose opaque fee practices—the result is predictable: rights are curtailed without the process the law requires, and the least-resourced litigants bear the heaviest costs.
The concerns collected here do not assert conclusions about every case on Elsmore’s calendars. They document patterns alleged by affected parties and highlight the legal standards that should govern. Verification lives in the exhibits and dockets linked below.