My experience in this court was extremely difficult and raised serious concerns for me regarding procedural fairness and transparency. During the proceedings, my communication and access to my children were suspended without a formal motion being argued in my presence, and before any written order was entered or served. I was not permitted to attend certain off-the-record conferences, and transcripts were either unavailable or difficult to obtain, which left me unable to fully understand or challenge decisions affecting custody and parenting time. Over the course of the case, I went through multiple attorneys, several of whom did not file substantive motions on my behalf. Ironically, I began making more progress toward restoring parenting time only after proceeding pro se. After a lengthy period of supervised visitation under multiple supervisors, overnight visitation was eventually restored, which made the earlier lack of clear findings or process even more difficult to understand. I also experienced ongoing confusion between Supreme Court and Family Court jurisdiction regarding child support and related matters, including issues involving notice and service of orders. Overall, I felt that important decisions affecting my relationship with my children were handled through an unclear process with insufficient transparency and inconsistent procedural safeguards. Legal Knowledge: In my experience, there was significant confusion and inconsistency regarding jurisdiction, procedure, and case management throughout the proceedings. I was repeatedly given conflicting information about whether matters belonged in Supreme Court, Family Court, or before a trial judge, while important issues affecting custody and support remained unresolved. I also observed repeated departures from stated procedures and part rules, which made it extremely difficult as a litigant to understand the status of my case or effectively protect my rights. Fairness & Impartiality: In my experience, I did not feel the proceedings were handled in a fair or impartial manner. I often felt that concerns I raised were dismissed without meaningful consideration, while procedural irregularities and violations affecting my rights and relationship with my children were overlooked. The overall handling of the case left me with the impression that there was an imbalance in how the parties were treated throughout the proceedings. Judicial Temperament: In my experience, the judicial temperament displayed throughout the proceedings did not reflect a strong understanding of the practical realities of mental health-related matters, despite the court’s apparent involvement in mental health-focused judicial initiatives. I felt that mental health concerns were at times treated in a dismissive or inconsistent manner, and that allegations or assumptions carried more weight than actual evaluations, treatment compliance, or professional findings. This created an atmosphere that felt more punitive than therapeutic or solution-oriented. Communication: In my experience, there was a significant lack of clarity, transparency, and accessible explanation throughout the proceedings. Many important discussions and decisions appeared to occur during off-the-record conferences where no transcription services were present, or where I was not permitted to participate despite repeated attempts to be included. I often did not receive copies of orders from my attorneys until weeks or months after they had allegedly been issued, making it extremely difficult to understand, challenge, or comply with court directives in a timely manner. I also experienced substantial confusion regarding financial and child support determinations. In my view, the court did not meaningfully evaluate the parties’ financial circumstances before issuing support-related decisions, and later declined to fully address modification concerns despite ongoing disputes regarding jurisdiction and enforcement. Timeliness: In my experience, the proceedings were marked by significant delays, inconsistent timelines, and a lack of timely communication regarding important rulings and orders. Critical custody, visitation, and support-related issues often remained unresolved for extended periods, while written orders were sometimes not received until weeks or months after decisions had allegedly been made. This created ongoing uncertainty and made it difficult to exercise rights, comply with directives, or seek timely review of major decisions affecting both parental access and financial obligations.