Judge DiRaimondo is part of the Trench Coat Mafia in family court. Legal Knowledge: I am raising significant concerns regarding the handling of this matter and the apparent disregard for due process and balanced evaluation. For nearly 30 months, I have been denied meaningful contact with my daughter despite never being adjudicated guilty of any wrongdoing. There has been no involvement from Child Protective Services, no criminal findings, and no substantiated evidence presented that would justify the prolonged restriction of my parental rights. Despite this, I have been required to undergo multiple intrusive evaluations and testing. I voluntarily completed two separate psychological evaluations, both of which found no psychological dysfunction. In addition, I was required to submit to both urine and hair follicle drug testing despite having no history of substance abuse. These measures have been imposed in the absence of any findings that would warrant such treatment. At the same time, there has been a lack of equal scrutiny applied to the opposing party. The accuser has a documented psychological evaluation on file indicating traits related to deception and narcissistic behavior, yet this information has not been meaningfully addressed or weighed in the proceedings. Further, my daughter has never been evaluated by a neutral, court-appointed professional. Instead, a privately retained counselor—paid directly by the opposing party at a significant hourly rate—has been permitted to provide input without the safeguards of neutrality that are standard in matters involving a child’s best interest. This raises serious concerns regarding impartiality and reliability. Rather than ensuring a balanced and evidence-based process, the approach taken has resulted in repeated and escalating demands placed solely on me, including the imposition of an additional evaluation after I had already complied with two independent evaluations. This creates the appearance of a process that is not grounded in objective findings but instead continues until a desired outcome is reached. The financial burden associated with these requirements has also been substantial, including thousands of dollars in legal fees and significant out-of-pocket costs for psychological evaluations and testing. Most importantly, the best interests of my daughter do not appear to have been adequately protected. A proper evaluation of both parents, as well as an independent assessment of the child, has not occurred. Instead, the current trajectory has resulted in prolonged separation without a balanced or substantiated basis. These concerns warrant serious review. Fairness & Impartiality: There are significant concerns regarding fairness and impartiality in how this matter has been handled. Relevant evidence has not been addressed consistently. I submitted multiple psychological evaluations demonstrating no dysfunction on my part, yet no written explanation has been provided as to why those evaluations were deemed insufficient or disregarded. At the same time, information concerning the opposing party—including a psychological evaluation relevant to issues raised in the case—has not been meaningfully considered. The result is a clear imbalance in scrutiny. Requirements and testing have been imposed on one party without corresponding evaluation of the other, and without articulated reasoning supported by the record. In matters involving a child’s best interest, impartial review of both parents and transparent reasoning are essential. The absence of clear, documented justification for these decisions raises serious concerns about whether the process has been conducted in an even-handed and objective manner. Judicial Temperament: There are serious concerns regarding judicial temperament and professionalism based on direct in-court interactions and subsequent actions. On July 9, 2025, when I disagreed with the Court, I was told that I “sounded crazy.” This statement was made on the record, as the Court insisted on having a court reporter present. Immediately following that interaction, the Court ordered a third psychological evaluation based solely on its personal impression of me, while refusing to acknowledge or provide any explanation for disregarding the two prior psychological evaluations I had already completed voluntarily. This has occurred in a case where I have never been adjudicated guilty of any wrongdoing, have no criminal record, and where CPS has never been involved. Despite that, I have been subjected to repeated psychological scrutiny without equal or corresponding evaluation of the other parent. At the same time, no independent evaluation of the child has ever been conducted. Instead, the Court has allowed reliance on a counselor selected and paid by the opposing party, as well as a guardian ad litem whose actions have appeared aligned with one side rather than neutral. This raises serious concerns about objectivity. The combination of dismissive language in court, reliance on personal impressions over documented evaluations, lack of neutral third-party assessment of the child, and unequal application of scrutiny creates the appearance of a process that is not balanced. Additionally, interactions with court staff, including the judicial assistant and bailiff, have contributed to these concerns, as communications have at times been inconsistent or inaccurate, further undermining confidence in the professionalism of the process. From the perspective of a parent who has been denied meaningful contact with their child for an extended period without a finding of guilt, these actions do not reflect the level of impartiality, restraint, and professionalism expected of the Court. Communication: There are significant concerns regarding clarity and consistency in the Court’s communication and rulings. Key decisions have been made without clear, documented explanations. I submitted two completed psychological evaluations, yet no written reasoning has ever been provided as to why those evaluations were disregarded or deemed insufficient. Instead, a third evaluation was ordered based on the Court’s personal impression following a disagreement in court on July 9, 2025, where I was told I “sounded crazy,” despite the existence of prior evaluations to the contrary. There has also been no clear explanation as to why no independent evaluation of the child has been conducted, while reliance has been placed on a counselor selected and paid by the opposing party. Similarly, concerns raised about the opposing party, including relevant psychological information submitted to the Court, have not been addressed in any articulated or transparent manner. Communication from the Court and its staff has at times been inconsistent, leaving uncertainty regarding requirements, expectations, and the basis for decisions. Requests for clarification have not resulted in substantive or documented responses. In a matter of this magnitude, involving a parent’s access to their child, clear, consistent, and well-reasoned communication is essential. The absence of written justification and the reliance on unexplained decisions have made it difficult to understand the Court’s reasoning or to meaningfully respond within the process. Timeliness: There are significant concerns regarding timeliness and responsiveness in this matter. Over the course of this case, I have filed a substantial number of motions—many of which have been denied, ignored, or delayed without clear explanation or timely resolution. This has created a pattern where filings do not receive prompt or meaningful consideration. Most recently, I filed an emergency motion in February, and as of nearly two months later, there has been no response or ruling. The lack of action on a motion designated as “emergency” raises serious concerns about whether urgent matters are being addressed with the priority they require. These delays have had a direct and ongoing impact, particularly in a case involving parent-child contact, where time is inherently critical. Extended inaction effectively results in prolonged separation without adjudication or resolution. In addition, interactions during proceedings have at times reflected a dismissive or adversarial tone, which, when combined with delayed rulings, contributes to the perception that concerns are not being addressed with the urgency, neutrality, and professionalism expected. Timely rulings and responsiveness are essential to maintaining fairness in judicial proceedings. The repeated delays and lack of resolution in this case fall short of that standard.