Public Review of Judge Jeff Moss — Concerns Regarding Judicial Impartiality, Child Safety, Due Process, and Accountability Based on my personal experiences and observations involving proceedings before Judge Jeff Moss, I have serious concerns about how emergency protective orders (EPOs), domestic violence orders (DVOs), cross-petitions, and related family court matters have been handled. My concerns extend beyond disagreement with individual rulings. They involve questions about judicial impartiality, the treatment of evidence, children's safety, parental rights, confidentiality, and whether everyone receives equal treatment under the law, regardless of family connections or standing in the local community. 1. Judicial impartiality and potential favoritism I have concerns about whether local connections and relationships involving public officials may influence how certain individuals are treated in court. In particular, I question whether the appearance of impartiality was maintained in matters involving a member of a mayor's family. Public confidence in the judicial system depends on judges treating everyone fairly, without favoritism or the appearance of preferential treatment. 2. Confidential juvenile proceedings I am concerned about the presence of the mayor's wife during juvenile court proceedings involving confidential information. This raises questions about whether her presence was authorized, whether appropriate confidentiality safeguards were followed, and whether the privacy of those involved was adequately protected. 3. Child safety, abuse allegations, and custody decisions I have serious concerns about proceedings in which allegations of child abuse and potential safety risks were reportedly brought to the judge's attention, yet the children remained in the petitioner's care. I question whether the available evidence, including video footage depicting alleged abusive behavior toward children, received appropriate consideration when decisions affecting their safety were made. I am also concerned about the granting of temporary custody in connection with an EPO/DVO proceeding involving a child whom I understand was not the petitioner's biological child. These circumstances raise questions about legal standing, parental rights, proper notice, the evidence presented, and whether the necessary legal safeguards were followed. When infants and toddlers are involved, their safety and best interests must be taken seriously. The court's decisions should reflect careful consideration of the evidence and the legal rights of all parents involved. 4. Due process and the handling of EPO/DVO proceedings I have concerns about whether the proceedings provided appropriate due process to everyone affected, including whether allegations were adequately examined, relevant evidence was considered, and the individuals whose rights were affected received the procedural protections required by law. I am particularly concerned about statements made in court suggesting that a matter was before the judge because a petitioner had been reported, when my understanding is that the underlying matter concerned allegations of fraud involving an EPO/DVO. I believe the actual basis of the proceeding should be accurately reflected in the record and should not be mischaracterized. 5. Reporting-source confidentiality One of my most serious concerns involves information identifying or disclosing a reporting source being discussed during a court proceeding while that individual was present, despite not being a party to the case. This raises important questions about confidentiality, the propriety of disclosing reporting-source information, and the protection of individuals who report suspected misconduct in good faith. People should not have to fear that reporting concerns will expose them to unnecessary scrutiny, retaliation, or public identification. 6. Social-media monitoring and privacy concerns I have documented concerns about months of social-media monitoring involving a family member connected to ongoing court proceedings. I believe the circumstances deserve careful consideration, particularly where the monitoring raises questions about privacy, intimidation, or the use of information concerning people connected to court cases. These concerns should be evaluated based on the documented conduct and its context, rather than dismissed without examination. 7. Courtroom professionalism and respect I have also been troubled by conduct and remarks I perceived as unprofessional or degrading toward grandparents who were not present to respond or defend themselves. Judicial authority carries a responsibility to maintain professionalism and treat people with dignity, including individuals who are not parties to the proceeding. Comments about absent individuals can raise legitimate concerns about fairness, respect, and the appearance of impartiality. 8. Accountability and independent review Taken together, these experiences have left me questioning whether judicial impartiality, child safety, confidentiality, procedural fairness, and professional standards were consistently upheld. I believe the concerns and supporting documentation warrant appropriate independent review. Where the evidence supports a finding of judicial misconduct or a violation of applicable law or ethical standards, the appropriate oversight authorities should determine what corrective or disciplinary action is warranted. I recognize that judicial decisions must be evaluated in their legal context, but judicial accountability is essential when questions arise about the handling of children, parental rights, confidential information, and individuals reporting suspected misconduct. The public deserves a judicial system in which no family connection, public position, or local influence creates the appearance of preferential treatment. Every child deserves appropriate protection. Every parent deserves due process. Every individual deserves impartial treatment, confidentiality where legally required, and respect. I encourage others with firsthand experiences or documented concerns about judicial conduct to learn about the appropriate reporting and oversight procedures and to preserve relevant records. Fairness, transparency, and accountability are not optional. They are fundamental to public trust in our courts. Signed Domestic Violence Survivor 23yrs with 18yrs lived experience