Contempt and custody-related hearings. Legal Knowledge: Judge Morris demonstrates a concerning absence of understanding of the law, as demonstrated by a lack of consistency in rulings on similar issues. This is also evidenced in too many of her hearings and motions for reconsideration that reference facts from trial records—facts that completely contradict the significant facts and conclusions of law written in her orders—thereby depriving too many people of their right to a fair trail and too many times—fdue process. There also appear to be issues related to impartiality and adherence to constitutional standards and ethical expectations. Fairness & Impartiality: Regarding fairness and impartiality, there appears to be a significant lack of fairness and impartiality. Judge Morris appears to favor certain parties based on their attorney and often adopts the positions presented by counsel, independent of the arguments (based on the person, not the law). Pro se litigants, particularly those opposing represented parties in family court, frequently receive unfair treatment, raising concerns about due process and the equal application of the law Judicial Temperament: During online hearings, Judge Morris would mute a pro se litigant rather than allowing the litigant to make reasonable statements for the record. She also did not know how to manage her courtroom, allowing lengthy testimony by both parties, wasting time and drawing out hearings over years. Although she appeared patient, her actions—muting litigants and refusing to hear motions—suggest otherwise. Timeliness: Allegations of abuse were raised. Hearings stretched over years.