Hon. Dawn Lonneman Blair

Custody, Child support, DVO Legal Knowledge: consistently uses boilerplate responses, neglects factual evidence, and does not understand constitutional rights Fairness & Impartiality: favors abusive fathers with mental illness while also running bias with court employees because they are with said father. skips over any actual evidence against the father and makes adverse inference against a dvo victim. Judicial Temperament: yells at disabled veterans, and talks down to pro se litigants Communication: 0 clarity in any rulings, continues to leave out findings of facts and only corrects herself and the record when 3 motions are filed on the same issue. Timeliness: either her or her constituents consistently fail to mail out judgements on time in order to give a response. she wants to take your rights away to respond to her uneducated judgment.

Legal Knowledge: Judge Blair makes decisions based on facts presented and within the confines of the law. She was polite but also no nonsense which was fine by me. I was not in court to make friends but to get a ruling for the best interest of my children. Sometimes what we want is not allowed by the laws our state has to follow. Judge Blair has to work within those laws and I believe she takes the time to make appropriate decisions.

Fairness & Impartiality: She’s fair and consistent. Judicial Temperament: She’s professional and courteous, even under trying circumstances. She’s an excellent judge. Legal Knowledge: She knows the law, stays updated, and applies the law fairly and with well written opinions.

divorce/custody Fairness & Impartiality: This court continues to ignore the red flags of litigation abuse and post-separation abuse, and parental alienation, ultimately placing children with the manipulative and abusive parent. Despite the evidence, the judge and court actors seem more focused on pleasing DCBS than protecting the constitutional rights of the parents before them. ​When a court overlooks parental alienation and ignores the state’s potential for bad faith actions, it ceases to be a place of justice. A disappointing and dangerous experience for any family seeking real protection.

I am writing to formally express serious concerns regarding judicial conduct observed in a family court matter involving the welfare of a minor child. It is my belief, based on firsthand experience, that critical procedural safeguards fundamental to due process were not consistently upheld. Specifically, decisions impacting the removal of a child from a reportedly stable and loving home environment were made without the benefit of fully developed testimony under oath, and without affording meaningful opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. These omissions raise substantial concerns regarding the adequacy of the evidentiary basis relied upon in determining the child’s placement. Additionally, there are concerns regarding potential judicial bias or conflict of interest. It has been observed that the presiding judge may have personal or indirect associations with individuals connected to proceedings before the court. Such circumstances, whether actual or perceived, undermine the essential requirement of judicial impartiality and may warrant further review under standards governing recusal. Further issues include: • Significant and repeated delays in court proceedings, potentially prejudicing the timely administration of justice • Inconsistencies in rulings that appear to lack clear legal or factual grounding • Apparent disregard or minimization of material evidence presented for consideration Of particular concern are allegations raised within the proceedings regarding the safety and well-being of the child. It is believed that these concerns were not thoroughly examined or adequately addressed through appropriate legal channels, which is deeply troubling given the court’s obligation to act in the best interest of the child. The cumulative effect of these issues raises substantial questions regarding compliance with constitutional due process protections, judicial ethics, and the overarching duty of the court to ensure fair and impartial adjudication. This notice is intended to encourage awareness and, where appropriate, further review by relevant oversight authorities to ensure that judicial conduct aligns with established legal standards and the protection of vulnerable parties. Legal Knowledge: I have serious and ongoing concerns that this judge has repeatedly failed to uphold fundamental due process protections as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In proceedings affecting the custody and welfare of a minor child, decisions appear to have been made without sworn testimony or meaningful opportunity for cross-examination, contrary to well-established principles recognized in cases such as Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), which affirms the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in proceedings affecting substantial rights. Additionally, the removal of a child from a parent implicates a fundamental liberty interest protected under Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), requiring fundamentally fair procedures before such action is taken. The apparent failure to fully consider material evidence and ensure a fair hearing raises further concerns under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which outlines the balancing test for determining what procedural safeguards due process requires. Moreover, continued delays, inconsistent rulings, and the appearance of potential bias raise questions regarding compliance with judicial ethics and impartiality standards, including those reflected in the Code of Judicial Conduct and principles addressed in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), concerning the necessity of an unbiased tribunal. Taken together, these issues undermine confidence in the integrity of the proceedings and call into question whether the constitutional rights of the parties involved are being adequately protected. Fairness & Impartiality: There are substantial concerns that this judge has failed to maintain the fairness, neutrality, and procedural integrity required under established law. The pattern of inconsistent rulings, failure to fully consider material evidence, and limiting the opportunity for sworn testimony and cross-examination raises serious questions regarding compliance with due process protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In matters involving the custody and removal of a child, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children, as recognized in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). These cases require that any state interference be supported by fundamentally fair procedures and a heightened evidentiary standard. The apparent failure to ensure a full and fair hearing, including the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses, is inconsistent with principles outlined in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970). Furthermore, the court’s apparent disregard or minimization of relevant evidence raises concerns under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which requires courts to balance the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation through inadequate procedures, and the government’s interest. When critical evidence is not meaningfully considered, the risk of an erroneous and harmful outcome is significantly increased. Additionally, the appearance of bias or conflict of interest implicates the requirement of an impartial tribunal, a cornerstone of due process as addressed in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009). Judicial conduct that creates even the appearance of partiality undermines public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and may warrant recusal under applicable judicial conduct standards. Taken together, the totality of these issues—including procedural deficiencies, inconsistent application of legal standards, delays in adjudication, and concerns regarding impartiality—demonstrates a pattern that is inconsistent with the legal requirements of fairness and due process, and raises serious concerns about the reliability and integrity of the court’s decisions in this matter. Judicial Temperament: There are additional concerns regarding the court’s lack of patience and reasonable accommodation, which further undermines the fairness of the proceedings. The judge has demonstrated an apparent unwillingness to accommodate legitimate medical concerns raised in a timely manner. Specifically, after I informed the court of a medical condition that would impair my ability to speak and effectively advocate for myself, I requested that the matter be heard on an expedited basis. Despite the time-sensitive nature of this request, the court declined to advance the hearing, indicating that it was not considered sufficiently urgent. As a result, I was placed in a position where I was unable to meaningfully participate or advocate on my own behalf during a critical stage of the proceedings. This raises serious concerns regarding the denial of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which is a fundamental component of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts are required to ensure that parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case, as recognized in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). The refusal to accommodate a legitimate medical limitation, coupled with rigid scheduling that appears to prioritize convenience over fairness, creates the appearance that the proceedings are conducted based on what is most convenient for the court rather than what is just and equitable for all parties involved. Such conduct calls into question whether the standards of judicial patience, impartiality, and fundamental fairness are being upheld in accordance with established legal principles and judicial ethical obligations. Communication: There are further concerns regarding the court’s pattern of unreasonable delays in deliberation and communication of decisions. The judge has repeatedly taken excessive amounts of time to issue rulings on matters that directly impact the rights of the parties and the welfare of the minor child. These prolonged delays create unnecessary uncertainty and instability, particularly in cases where timely decisions are critical. Such delays raise concerns under principles of due process, which require not only a fair hearing but also a timely resolution. As recognized in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), procedural safeguards must be sufficient to minimize the risk of erroneous deprivation of important rights. When decisions are significantly delayed, the risk of harm increases, especially in cases involving custody and child welfare. Additionally, the failure to promptly communicate rulings may conflict with the expectation that courts administer justice efficiently and without undue delay, a principle embedded in judicial conduct standards and reflected in the longstanding legal maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied.” The cumulative effect of these delays undermines confidence in the court’s ability to manage proceedings in a fair, efficient, and responsive manner, and raises serious concerns about whether the best interests of the child and the rights of the parties are being adequately protected. Timeliness: There are serious concerns regarding the absence of defined timelines and the prolonged duration of these proceedings. This matter has now extended over a period of approximately two years, with repeated continuances and delays that have prevented timely resolution. The lack of urgency and failure to move the case forward in a structured and efficient manner creates the appearance that there are no meaningful timelines governing the progression of the case. While courts are expected to manage complex matters carefully, such extended delays raise concerns about compliance with the principle that justice must be administered without unnecessary delay. Prolonged proceedings not only place an emotional and financial burden on the parties involved, but also undermine the stability and best interests of the child at the center of the case. Additionally, the repeated extensions and lack of resolution may give the appearance—whether intended or not—that the continuation of proceedings is being prioritized over timely adjudication. This perception further erodes confidence in the fairness and efficiency of the judicial process. Courts have an obligation to ensure that cases, particularly those involving child welfare, are handled with diligence, urgency, and a clear commitment to reaching a resolution that serves the best interests of the child and protects the rights of all parties involved.