Superior Court · California
previous review is almost identical to our experience. RFO was converted into an evidentiary day of without prior notice to parties. relevant evidence and witnesses denied. drastic custody changes made without allowing all relevant evidence to the issues at hand to be presented. no objective neutral party evidence permitted.
Family court custody case involving allegations of domestic violence and parental alienation. Concerns arose regarding reliance on a Family Court Services mediation report without an evidentiary hearing. Requests for the opportunity to present evidence and challenge statements in the report were denied. The court issued orders affecting custody and visitation despite disputes over the accuracy of the mediation findings and the lack of sworn testimony or cross-examination. The case raised concerns about due process, including the ability to present evidence, challenge hearsay statements contained in mediation reports, and obtain a full evidentiary hearing before significant custody decisions were made. Legal Knowledge: Significant concerns regarding the application of basic evidentiary and due process principles. Orders affecting custody and visitation were issued while relying heavily on unsworn Family Court Services mediation reports that contained disputed statements and hearsay. Requests for a full evidentiary hearing, the opportunity to present evidence, and the ability to challenge the accuracy of the report were not meaningfully addressed. Fairness & Impartiality: Significant concerns about impartiality during proceedings. Key custody decisions appeared to rely heavily on disputed mediation reports without providing a meaningful opportunity to challenge the statements or present contrary evidence. Requests for an evidentiary hearing were not granted, creating the appearance that one party’s allegations were accepted without equal scrutiny. Judicial Temperament: During proceedings there were concerns regarding patience and openness to hearing both parties fully. Attempts to raise procedural objections and present evidence were often cut short or not meaningfully addressed. This created the impression that the court was not fully receptive to hearing all relevant arguments before issuing decisions affecting custody and visitation. Communication: Court rulings affecting custody and visitation were issued with limited explanation of the legal reasoning or evidentiary basis for the decisions. The court appeared to rely heavily on mediation reports without clearly addressing disputed facts or explaining how those statements were weighed against other concerns raised during proceedings. Minute orders were hidden and not available. Timeliness: There were concerns regarding the timeliness of written orders and the resolution of key issues in the case. Delays in receiving minute orders and clarity on rulings created uncertainty and made it difficult to properly respond or pursue appropriate legal remedies.