Custody, decision making, child support Judicial Temperament: During trial showed no expression and asked no questions. He ddressed us at the about the process and time frame. Communication: decree and decision was vague and confusing even after explicitly asking for clarity. Timeliness: nothing was on time Fairness & Impartiality: In my case before Judge McCarthy, SUBSTANTIAL evidence was presented regarding ongoing high-conflict co-parenting. This included repeated communication failures and withholding of information, more than 30 instances of unilateral decision-making, involvement of the children in the conflict, consistent negative commentary about the other parent, multiple instances of interference with parenting time, and concerns affecting the children’s medical care, emotional well-being, and documented ongoing substance abuse issues. While these concerns were acknowledged, they were not meaningfully addressed in the final ruling. The decision to maintain joint legal decision-making and equal parenting time, without enforceable structure or accountability, fails to reflect the realities of high-conflict dynamics and associated safety concerns. In my opinion, this was an unacceptable outcome. When patterns of behavior are clearly documented over more than five years and continue to impact the children, rulings should incorporate clear, practical, and enforceable safeguards that prioritize their best interests. I specifically requested a clear and detailed order to reduce ongoing conflict; even that did not occur. Despite the volume of evidence presented, the resulting order was lazy, unclear, lacked necessary structure, and perpetuates the high-conflict dynamic. I would give zero stars if that were an option.