I am going through a divorce that has now been over three years. I reported concerns of domestic violence from the beginning and initially had a RO and sole custody of my young child. my child reported concerns and I requested supervised visits several times on father of which were denied.
Worse despite a child disclosure to a dr and dr concern my child was given to the alledged abuser and I lost my child and home as GAL court appointed misrepresented known facts and provided false information to the judge. I advised I had evidence of hand that contradicted opposing party and GAL and supported my affidavit. I was denied
I continued to report concerns as they arose and restrictions on me worsened and now currently due to faulty GAL investigation by Tasha Buzzell she recommended no contact with my child outside of supervised visits(father requested after child disclosed abuse and police filed on him)
without review of evidence I have been deemed “not credible” and suffered severe damages both financially and emotionally.
child displays severe trauma as well and requests for specialist review have been denied.
I advised of coercive control dynamics and litigation abuse and had it fall on deaf ears.
★☆☆☆☆Litigant
DCF CUSTODY SEVERE DV HOMELESS MOTHER ABUSIVE FATHER 7 KIDS CHILD SUPPORT COERCIVE CONTROL
Legal Knowledge: My experience before Judge Moses raised serious concerns regarding the court’s adherence to fundamental legal principles, including jurisdiction, due process, and access to the courts.
I formally raised jurisdictional challenges through a Special Appearance and related filings. These objections were never meaningfully addressed or ruled upon on the record before the court proceeded with further actions. Courts are required to establish and confirm jurisdiction before exercising authority over a litigant or issuing orders. Despite this requirement, my jurisdictional challenges were effectively ignored.
Multiple motions I filed, including a Motion to Stay, Motion to Suspend proceedings, emergency motions, memoranda of law, and other filings, were either not docketed or were refused consideration. The refusal to allow filings to appear on the docket prevented preservation of the record and obstructed meaningful appellate review.
The court also failed to rule on requests for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including a motion to appear remotely by Zoom. Despite these pending requests and unresolved motions, the matter proceeded toward trial without the court resolving these procedural issues or providing accommodations.
Serious safety concerns were presented to the court, including allegations of severe domestic violence, documented restraining order violations, criminal conduct involving the opposing party and other women, erratic and dangerous behavior affecting the children’s welfare, and failures by the Department of Children and Families to properly investigate and accurately represent facts to the court. These issues were not meaningfully examined or addressed during proceedings.
The circumstances also involved a mother experiencing homelessness while escaping domestic violence. Despite the context of abuse and instability caused by the opposing party’s conduct, the court allowed these circumstances to be used against me in custody and child support proceedings. The father was effectively able to maintain custody under those conditions while the court failed to properly evaluate the underlying domestic violence and safety concerns. This allowed the court system to be used as a continuation of coercive control and post separation abuse.
Additional procedural concerns included removal from mediation by court personnel while simultaneously being ordered to participate, pressure by court staff to sign documents under threat of incarceration related to child support enforcement, and wage garnishment orders pursued despite objections raised under duress.
Criminal complaints and reports of potential criminal conduct that were submitted to the court were not referred to prosecutorial authorities. Concerns also arose regarding irregular interactions between court personnel and opposing parties that created the appearance of improper communications outside the formal record.
The cumulative effect of these actions raises serious concerns regarding compliance with fundamental constitutional protections, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right of access to the courts, and the obligation of courts to fairly consider jurisdictional challenges, motions, safety concerns affecting children, and the rights of domestic violence survivors.
The court’s demeanor during proceedings also appeared dismissive and openly disrespectful toward me as a litigant, which further undermined confidence that my filings and concerns were receiving fair and impartial consideration.
Fairness & Impartiality: My experience before Judge Moses raised serious concerns regarding fairness and equal treatment of the parties. Throughout the proceedings, significant evidence and safety concerns I raised were dismissed or ignored, while the opposing party’s position appeared to be accepted with far less scrutiny.
I presented information regarding severe domestic violence, restraining order violations, criminal history involving other women, and a pattern of violent and unstable behavior connected to the opposing party and members of his household. I also raised concerns regarding criminal activity occurring in the surrounding environment, including incidents of violence and police involvement in the community connected to that household. These concerns were relevant to the safety and stability of the children.
Despite this, the children remained in that environment even while open investigations with the Department of Children and Families were ongoing. During that time, the children were reportedly eloping from the home and safety concerns continued to be raised.
At the same time, circumstances caused by fleeing domestic violence, including temporary homelessness, were effectively used against me in custody and child support proceedings. This created the appearance that the court process allowed the opposing party to maintain custody while the underlying safety concerns were not thoroughly evaluated.
One notable contradiction illustrates the concern. The court approved my request for an order to impound my address due to the opposing party’s history of violence and safety concerns directed toward me. This acknowledgment of risk stands in contrast to the court’s apparent reluctance to fully examine the broader safety concerns I raised regarding the children’s environment and wellbeing.
Additional concerns arose regarding irregular interactions between court personnel and the opposing party outside the formal record, as well as the court’s dismissive demeanor when I attempted to raise legal arguments or safety issues.
Taken together, these circumstances created the appearance that the parties were not treated equally and that the safety concerns I raised were not given the same level of consideration as the positions advanced by the opposing party.
Judicial Temperament: My experience before Judge Moses raised serious concerns regarding judicial temperament, professionalism, and respect toward litigants.
During proceedings, the court frequently appeared dismissive when I attempted to raise legal arguments or safety concerns related to my children. On multiple occasions the judge visibly rolled her eyes or showed irritation when I attempted to address the court regarding domestic violence, jurisdictional objections, and procedural issues.
In written orders and during proceedings, the court characterized my conduct as “problematic” rather than addressing the substance of the concerns I raised. This occurred despite my explaining that I was a mother experiencing significant trauma related to domestic violence and separation from my children. Instead of acknowledging that context, the court appeared to treat my attempts to advocate for my children and raise legal objections as misconduct.
The court’s tone and responses created the impression that I was being viewed negatively as a person rather than being evaluated based on the legal issues and evidence presented. As a result, the proceedings often felt less focused on the merits of the case and more influenced by personal perceptions of me as a litigant.
This was particularly troubling given the circumstances of the case, where I was attempting to protect and advocate for seven children while navigating the aftermath of domestic violence and extreme financial hardship. Actions taken in the case, including child support enforcement and other orders, appeared to compound those hardships rather than meaningfully address the safety concerns that had been raised.
Combined with the dismissive demeanor observed during hearings, this conduct undermined confidence that the proceedings were being conducted with the patience, neutrality, and professionalism expected of a judicial officer presiding over sensitive family matters involving children and allegations of abuse.
Communication: My experience before Judge Moses raised serious concerns regarding clarity, transparency, and the ability of litigants to be heard on the record.
During hearings I was frequently interrupted or cut off while attempting to explain legal objections, jurisdictional challenges, and safety concerns related to my children. When I attempted to raise these issues, including domestic violence concerns and procedural objections, the court often moved past them without acknowledging or addressing the substance of what was being presented.
Multiple motions and filings I submitted were not clearly ruled on or explained. These included jurisdictional challenges, a Special Appearance, motions to stay or suspend proceedings, emergency motions, requests for accommodations, and supporting memoranda. In several instances the case proceeded without clear rulings addressing these filings.
At one hearing on a motion that I had filed, I was informed that the case would be proceeding to trial shortly afterward despite the fact that several motions were still pending. I explained that those motions had already been submitted to the clerk’s office and needed to be heard before any trial date could be set. I also raised concerns regarding lack of proper service in the case and offered to complete service so that the issues could be addressed appropriately. The court declined to hear those motions or address the service concerns at that time.
Orders issued in the case often did not meaningfully address the arguments or concerns that had been raised during hearings. Important issues related to domestic violence, child safety, jurisdictional objections, and procedural deficiencies were not clearly explained in the court’s reasoning.
The combination of being frequently interrupted during hearings and the absence of clear written explanations in orders created significant confusion about how the court was evaluating the issues in the case. In proceedings involving custody, domestic violence allegations, and the wellbeing of several children, it is critical that litigants are allowed to fully present their concerns and that rulings clearly address the matters raised. In my experience, those standards of clear communication and transparency were often lacking.
Timeliness: My case remained active for an extended period of time, beginning around late 2023 and not proceeding to trial until January 2026. During that time, significant motions and issues raised in the case were not addressed in a timely manner, and the case experienced repeated delays.
While the case was pending, several important matters remained unresolved, including jurisdictional challenges, motions requesting relief, and concerns related to domestic violence and child safety. Progress in the case often appeared stalled, and hearings or decisions on pending issues did not move forward in a timely or predictable manner.
Despite this long period of delay, the matter ultimately proceeded to trial even though the issues I had previously raised had not been resolved and I was not prepared to move forward. The shift from extended delay to moving ahead with trial created the impression that the case management process was inconsistent.
The prolonged timeline has had significant consequences. During this period I have had no access to my children while still being subject to substantial child support obligations, despite experiencing extreme financial hardship and homelessness while attempting to navigate the court process.
In cases involving children and allegations of domestic violence, timely and consistent case management is essential. In my experience, the delays followed by a sudden move toward trial created serious concerns regarding the overall handling of the case.