I am in a custody case against the mother of my child. Fairness & Impartiality: When I brought up that the Guardian At Litem not only lied under oath but also mentioned the fact that she spent 2 hours with my daughter's mother and only 20 minutes with me. In which the GAL stated she "saw what she needed to see". When I informed the judge that this is not ok and he said well they are busy people and have families to. Judicial Temperament: Doesn't care about anything other than what he wants. He told me that I dont know how to parent before I was at to provide evidence showing the contrary. Then when I stated that was inappropriate, he got extremely angry and 10 minutes after that he stated he was only trying to be funny. Communication: The timing of the courts communication and the manner conducted is absolutely horrendous with half of the motions not ever being ruled or ordered on. Timeliness: On Feb 26 I filed a motion for temporary orders. Previous to that filing, we had a scheduled hearing for April 16 regarding my motion to enforce due to the ongoing violations from the other party. On April 7 I filed an expedited motion to rule on the temporary orders and an objection to the attorney’s representation because there was a major conflict of interest. I filed the expedited motion for temporary orders because I knew the hearing would be continued due to the conflict of interest. On April 16th we had our hearing. I was sworn in along with the other party, and then he told me to start arguing my motion to enforce. I objected and informed him that I had filed an objection to the opposing counsel’s appearance. He said he “never received it.” So instead, he told me to show why it was a conflict, which I did, as I had evidence proving I had consulted the attorney twice regarding the same case. Then the judge looked at me and said we were not talking about anything else that day. He ended the hearing and stated he would reschedule it and send out a ruling on my objection to the attorney. Now, four days after the hearing, I received an order from my Feb 26 motion for temporary orders signed and dated April 3rd, an order for my April 7 motion to expedite temporary orders signed and dated April 17, and the judge’s order on my objection to opposing counsel signed and dated April 17 which stated there was a conflict and granted my request to have the attorney removed. Then, on my order from Feb 26 sighned and dated April 3rd, it said that it would be heard at the April 13 hearing. Not only did he get the hearing date wrong, but the order was never sent to me prior to the April 16 hearing. I received it on April 20 in the mail. Then he wrote an order for my April 7 motion to expedite, stating to refer back to his order from April 3, where it would be discussed at the April 13 hearing. So not only did they not send the April 3 order out, he got the hearing date wrong, saying it was April 13 when it was actually April 16, and it was sent out with two other motions and received four days after the hearing. Then the fact that on April 17, the day after my hearing, he wrote on my April 7th motion to refer to his April 3 order, where it would be discussed at my April 13 hearing (the actual hearing date was April 16). How can it be discussed at my hearing when I got notice on April 20, four days after the hearing occurred? How can a judge stated in an order to refer to an order saying it would be discussed at the hearing that day after the hearing! Also, the judge signed an order saying it would be discussed at the hearing, yet during the hearing he said nothing else would be discussed and did not even have it in front of him, just like my objection. Then, in November 2024, I filed a motion for contempt. Five months later, I received a document from the court saying my case was closed. I went to the court to check the status and see why my case was closed when I had pending motions. The court found that motion for contempt and the judge’s order stating it was to be scheduled for a hearing. The court clerk stated that she must have missed it and acknowledged the mistake, then blamed me for not checking in earlier. So I filed a petition to reopen the case due to the fact that this motion for contempt was never heard. The judge scheduled a hearing on it. I went to the hearing, and the judge stated that my motion to reopen was moot since we had a hearing. Then he stated that since the hearing had occurred, my motion for contempt would be scheduled. So not only was it never scheduled or added to my motion to enforce, he stated that it was no longer needed since the case was open and I filed a motion to enforce. I also filed a motion to have the case removed and transferred to another court because the other party worked for the town as the secretary, worked with the court, and knew everyone, and had personal relationships with them. She had her boss, who was the fire chief, go to her office while we were at court, grab documents she printed out that were confidential court-related documents, and bring them to her. Her boss also texted her to inform her that I had taken my daughter to the Red Sox game because he saw us, which I am allowed to do. Then in January, the other party filed a police report saying that I failed to return my daughter 10 minutes before the court-ordered drop-off time. Then she somehow got ahold of my driving record and found out before I did that my license had been suspended due to an EZ Pass issue from when we were on the same account 10 years prior. That same night she said I failed to drop off my daughter, she knew I was driving with a suspended license, then waited four days until my next parenting time. At 12 PM that day, before I was to pick up my daughter at 5 PM, she went to the police station and informed them that my license was suspended and that I would be driving to pick up my daughter later that night. I then received a call from the police department stating that if I drove to get my daughter, because the meeting place was the police department, I would be arrested. After all of this, I filed a complaint and report with the town and requested an investigation into this and into the other party’s boss for obtaining confidential court documents and contacting her during my parenting time to inform her of our activities, as well as how the town secretary was able to access my protected driving record. The town failed to conduct a proper investigation. They refused to allow me to present evidence, including a voicemail confirming that the police acknowledged the other party had my driving record. The town manager allowed the same individuals involved, including the fire chief and police chief, to investigate themselves and refused to bring in a third party. I was refused answers and not allowed to present my evidence. I have a police report from a detective showing his investigation. It states that the other party made a police report 10 minutes prior to my drop-off time, which I have evidence contradicting. It also states that she learned about my license suspension through a police scanner, and the detective claimed he knew who I was, even though I had never met or heard of him before. When I brought all of this to the court, including every piece of evidence attached to my motion to change venue — including the court secretary speaking about my case with the other party, the other party’s employment with the town, her personal relationships, and her family’s long-standing connections in the area — the court denied my motion. I also included documentation showing that the other party and the guardian ad litem discussed the case after it was closed, including a message from the other party admitting she did so. The court denied my motion to change venue and simply stated “denied.” When I asked for clarification at a hearing, the court stated we were not there to discuss any conflict and that there was nothing showing a potential conflict. When I stated that it does not require clear and convincing evidence but rather whether a reasonable person would perceive a conflict, the judge responded that I must be the only person who believes there is a reasonable possibility of conflict. Legal Knowledge: He doesnt know anything about legal knowledge and just days legal terminology to make him look proffesional and like he knows what he is talking about.