Hon. Lance E Joanis

I have been dealing with a non stop child custody case for 14.5 years that involves Judge Joanis allowing my kids mother to use the court to her advantage and Joanis approving all her motions that involve her getting more and more money, and me not being able to see my son. He recently broke Alaska civil rule 90.3 in my case and I am filing a complaint against him. He favors mothers and child support. and all aside from that, judge Joanis gives breaks to pedophiles in the area. He's a disgrace to the judicial system and I am most certain he is making back door deals to fill his pockets.

observed family law matter and observed victims petition for domestic violence denied without a hearing. observed retaliatory sanctions against a party who sought to exercise his right to recuse him as the judge over the family law matter. Legal Knowledge: unsure if he knows them or not but certainly doesn't appear to apply them. Fairness & Impartiality: appears to have a friendly relationship with certain counsel such as Parissa Harris and Andrew Lambert. Parissa Harris and Hon. Joanis's wife are friends and never have I observed them to disclose their more than professional relationship. Judicial Temperament: observed opposing counsel make derogatory statements about a party's disability and Hon. Joanis failed to admosnish or stop opposing counsel during cross examination Communication: observed him to make fact findings and conclusions of law in multiple cases . Observed his orders admitting he could have done a better job but then doesn't. Timeliness: observed parties having to file request for ruling due to him taking the full 6 months or longer

this is a family law case in which Joanis weaponized judicial discretion to repeatedly delay rulings, ignore evidence, enforce unequal standards, and, by the movant’s allegations, facilitate years of parental alienation and due process deprivation before ultimately recusing himself over the appearance of bias Legal Knowledge: He applied a dv presumption without evidence of a dv. He never followed procedure. He altered hearings and heard evidence not relevant to any motion. when it came to law it was a clown show Fairness & Impartiality: The opposing party just had to tell them what they wanted and he would give it to them without following procedure Judicial Temperament: caught him on record making derogatory commentary about parties Communication: there was rarely any clarity or explanations in rulings and if he did explain anything it was so far off from the law there was no logic in it Timeliness: not one time did he rule in a timely manner. sometimes he didn’t rule at all. every ruling lasted 9 months