As it looks like the rule now on family court, judges are more willingly to see the fathers point of view even with restraining orders and DV history. The tone and handling of the hearing made me feel intimidated and unable to fully present relevant evidence and testimony. I believe important concerns affecting the children and family dynamics were not given balanced consideration. Mainly: unequal treatment of testimony/evidence, feeling unable to fully present my case, intimidation/tone, concerns unsupported allegations receiving weight, self-represented litigant concerns, concerns about balanced consideration of what was presented. And finally after try to defend from the unsupported allegations I had to hear "its weird that you have an answer for everything", which got me confused because she was questioning my ability to defend myself from the accusations, like, I couldn't do it because THAT would be suspicious. Communication: the judge has a very personal understanding of "hearsay", if iit comes from the party she chose to believe, then this party use hearsay as much as they want, if is the party she chose to not believe, then this party cant use hearsay. Legal Knowledge: Hearsay rule apparently isnt very clear , because it depends on the party. Willingly to hear all unsupported allegations from one side and not question but doesnt aply to both sides, questioning all the allegations (supported, with witness and paperwork) from the other side. Apparently she doesnt have the knowledge of the motions on the case before hearing, this way she has no clue of who is only escalating conflict and trowing allegations on the window to see what sticks and create chaos, and who is trying to defend and calm down the conflict ( it would be just a work of reading the motions of the case, nothing else!). Apparently she question agreements made by BOTH parties at the same court she works on. In this case she blamed one party to be following the agreement made years ago by both parties because she thought it wasnt fair (even though both parties signed the agreement, passed by the approval of a judge and it was being followed as it should be). Fairness & Impartiality: Completely bias. From the moment she seats on her chair , she already chose who to believe. Even though is obvious that she has no knowledge of anything that was wrote on the motions, It doesnt matter proofs neither. I am not sure if is by the looks or , apparently a problem we are having all over the country on Family court, a gender matter, but the fact is, she is definitely not imparcial. Laughts and make comments when the party is trying to defend from unsupported allegations. Has no respect and scream intimidating the party and making more and more difficult to be able to defend from accusations even though the unsupported accusations are coming from a person with history of restraining orders (approved by different judges through the years) and DV, and the other party that needs to defend and is being screamed at, has no history of absolutely nothing what so ever. Judicial Temperament: She intimidates during the hearing, the party that she chose not to believe from the beginning, is screamed at, questioning logic like : why did you follow your agreement, make comments like "do you have X amount of children?" and again because she wants to make sure she looks surprise of the amount of children the person she appears to not like have " DO YOU HAVE X AMOUNT OF CHILDREN? OMG" ... completely unnecessary comments that intimidates the party, as having X or Y amount of children is ilegal or the one that should be "blamed" is the mom that should "avoid" not the father as well. Screams, making the party very nervous specially im a situation where the whole future of a family is being decided. Completely unnecessary and unfair.