When Family Court Fails: The Fight to Bring Barron Home
In southeast Georgia, in the Brunswick Judicial Circuit, a custody case is raising serious concerns about the integrity of the family court system and the influence of long-standing professional relationships within small town legal circles. The case centers on Dr. Kreslyn Barron Odum, a respected optometrist in Jesup, and her six-year-old daughter, Barron. For the first six years of her life, Barron lived exclusively with her mother. It is reported that her father, Dr. Byron Brooks, had limited contact during the child’s early years due to medical school residency and work obligations and, according to public accounts, never lived in the same home as the child.
Dr. Odum and Dr. Brooks were married in 2007 but separated shortly after their daughter’s birth in 2018. Divorce proceedings began when the child was ten months old. In 2023, a final decree granted physical custody to Dr. Odum, with visitation awarded to Dr. Brooks. Following that order, and according to Dr. Odum, Barron began showing visible signs of emotional distress surrounding her visits with her father. Dr. Odum reported that her daughter cried, resisted going, and made troubling statements about what was happening during her time away. According to Dr. Odum, these concerns were accompanied by symptoms she observed in her daughter, including bedwetting, nightmares, and escalating anxiety. Instead of pursuing a thorough investigation into the mother’s concerns, the court's attention turned to a claim of “parental alienation” raised by Dr. Brooks.
The allegation was supported in court by Guardian ad Litem Courtney Joiner Anderson, an attorney appointed to represent the child’s best interests. Anderson, who is not a licensed mental health professional, testified that the child’s refusal to exit her mother’s vehicle during custody exchanges was evidence of alienation. Three independent mental health professionals reportedly disagreed with this conclusion and recommended that the child remain in the primary care of her mother.
Despite those recommendations, the court ultimately adopted the position advanced by the GAL. A two-day hearing was held in August, but no ruling was made at that time. In September, the judge awarded temporary custody to Dr. Brooks. According to multiple sources close to the case, Dr. Brooks assumed physical custody before the written order had been signed, filed by the Clerk of Court, and before the mother had even been notified. Barron left with no items from home, no preparation, and no goodbye or explanation from her mother. That action has raised legal and ethical questions and has been described by some advocates as an unauthorized removal, while others have labeled it as legalized kidnapping.
Testimony during the hearing raised additional concerns about neutrality in the case. GAL Anderson acknowledged under cross examination that she invited Dr. Brooks’ attorney, Kimberly Copeland, to attend part of a visit with the child before Copeland entered an appearance as Dr. Brooks’ counsel — a visit that, by standard practice, should have been conducted independently. Anderson also confirmed that she had a personal relationship with Copeland and had recently visited Copeland’s new home. The attorney for the child’s mother was not allowed to observe the meeting, and the GAL never met Dr. Odum in person nor observed her with Barron. Critics have pointed to these interactions as potential conflicts of interest and questioned the weight given to the GAL’s recommendation.
Further concerns have surfaced regarding Anderson’s past online commentary. Screenshots shared by community advocates reportedly show prior public statements in support of fathers’ rights. Advocates argue that this perceived ideological bias could have shaped her assessment of the case. Anderson and Copeland have worked together on previous cases including one that reportedly settled for up to 30 million dollars. While longstanding professional associations are not uncommon in smaller legal communities, these details have contributed to a growing perception of partiality.
Judge Carla Roberts Powell, who presided over the case, has also come under scrutiny. Community members have expressed concern over the court’s handling of the case, as well as other custody matters involving protective parents.
According to multiple individuals with knowledge of the case, Dr. Odum has no history of professional misconduct or legal issues. Yet since the court’s decision, she has been denied access to her daughter’s school, medical, and extra-curricular records, but more concerning, she has been denied access to her daughter.
Separately, Dr. Brooks has been named in prior and current civil matters. Public sources indicate that he was named in a malpractice lawsuit that resulted in a one-million dollar judgment. He has also been accused of sexual assault by a former patient. These matters have not resulted in criminal convictions however, these issues have intensified public concern regarding the court’s decision to place the child in his custody.
Supporters of Dr. Odum argue that the very behavior the court used to justify the removal (emotional harm and restricted contact) is now being imposed on the mother herself. Dr. Odum’s daughter has been relocated to another part of the state and uprooted from her home, her school, her loved ones, the community where she was raised, and most importantly – the only caregiver she has ever known. Advocates for the mother say that what began as a legal custody proceeding has evolved into a broader reckoning of power, access, and transparency within Georgia’s family court system.
This case reflects a larger trend that has been reported in jurisdictions across the United States. Protective parents, often mothers, report that when they raise concerns about abuse or emotional harm, they are at risk of being accused of alienation. The term, which has been criticized by child advocacy organizations and mental health experts for its lack of scientific validity, is increasingly used in high conflict custody disputes and, according to critics, can discredit or take precedence over legitimate safety concerns.
A petition is now circulating calling on the Georgia State Bar, the Prosecuting Attorneys Council, state leaders, and members of the press to investigate what has occurred in Wayne County. The petition urges accountability and oversight not only for this case, but for the handling of similar cases across the state. Advocates emphasize that their aim is not to discredit the family court system, but to ensure it functions with fairness, impartiality, and integrity —always prioritizing the well-being of children above all else.
At the heart of this story is a six-year-old girl who has been torn from the only life she has ever known. It has now been five months since she last saw her mother; the person who raised her,nurtured her, and served as her primary caregiver since birth and seven months since she has been home. Her world has been reshaped not by the best interests of a child, but by a court process riddled with unchecked authority, personal alliances, and a troubling disregard for mental health professionals and evidence-based concerns. The consequences are far reaching, not only for this child and her mother, but for public trust in a system that claims to serve justice. What began as a private custody dispute has now become a public demand for accountability, transparency, and systemic reform. Families in Wayne County and across the country deserve more than empty promises of justice. They deserve a legal process that is not riddled with bias, personal alliances, or financial motivations. Parents rely on the judicial system to protect their children. When that system deepens the harm instead of protecting children, that is not just failure—it is institutional betrayal. Until this is confronted head-on, stories like Dr. Odum’s will continue to surface. Those bearing witness to the injustice in this case will not remain silent.
CALLS TO ACTION:
1. Share this blog or other coverage of this case such as the one by Michael Volpe Investigates.
2. Sign the petition: Bring Barron Home
3. Demand Justice: Contact Georgia State and National Leaders
Raise your voice and demand action. Urge state officials to:
• Return this child to safety with her protective mother immediately.
• Investigate the corruption and conflicts within the Brunswick (Wayne County) Judicial Circuit
• Restore Dr. Odum’s constitutional right to a fair trial and due process.
Please contact the following individuals:
▪ Office Phone: (404) 656-1776
▪ Lauren Curry, Chief of Staff to Governor Brian Kemp Phone: (404) 668-0434 Email: lauren.curry@georgia.gov
Attorney General Chris Carr
▪ Attorney General Chris Carr Office (404) 458-3600 Email AGCarr@law.ga.gov
▪ Michelle Sawyer Assistant to Attorney Attorney Office: (404) 458-3319 Email: msawyer@law.ga.gov
▪ Travis Johnson, Chief of Staff to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr Office: Direct Line: (404) 458-3221 Email: tjohnson@law.ga.gov
▪ Thomas McNulty Senior Assistant to Attorney General Email: wmcnulty@law.ga.gov
▪ Email: info@electjon.com
▪ Rey Benitez Ossoff Chief of Staff, rey_benitez@ossoff.senate.gov
▪ Darrin Owens, Special Projects Coordinator, Office of U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff, at darrin_owens@ossoff.senate.gov or (470) 786-780
▪ Chandra Harris, State Director, Office of U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff, at Chandra_Harris@ossoff.senate.gov
Offices:
Atlanta, GA: 470-786-7800
Augusta, GA: 706-261-5031
Columbus, GA: 706-780-7053
Savannah, GA: 912-200-9402
Washington D.C.: 202-224-3521
Messaging to use in your outreach: “Bring Barron Home,” and hashtags #BringBarronHome and #InvestigateBrunswickJudicialCircuit.
It is our goal to amplify the story of Dr. Kreslyn Barron Odum and expose the corruption within Georgia’s Brunswick (Wayne County) Judicial Circuit. Every share raises awareness and fuels the pressure for change.
Together, we are stronger and together we can make a difference.
