Review of Proceedings Before Michael G. Dayian The purpose of this review is not to challenge discretionary rulings, but to document specific concerns regarding procedural fairness, record accuracy, and the overall integrity of the proceedings. 1. Accuracy of the Record There were multiple instances where findings in the court’s decision did not appear to align with the hearing transcripts. These included: Statements attributed to me that do not appear in the record Mischaracterizations of transportation circumstances Incorrect attribution of who initiated certain legal actions Findings inconsistent with sworn testimony (e.g., regarding vehicle access) Because custody determinations rely heavily on factual findings, discrepancies between the record and the decision raise concerns about reliability. 2. Handling of Evidence During the proceedings, the court indicated that certain evidence would be included in the record. However, that evidence was never formally entered. As a result: Contradictory material I attempted to present was not considered The final decision appears to have been made without a complete evidentiary record This raises concerns about whether all relevant information was properly evaluated. 3. Conduct of Assigned Counsel My assigned counsel, who also serves as a judge in another jurisdiction, made statements discouraging me from pursuing certain legal arguments, including references to potential negative outcomes such as supervised visitation. Given his dual role, these statements created the appearance of: Undue pressure A potential conflict of interest A chilling effect on my willingness to assert my legal rights 4. Attorney for the Child (AFC) Concerns In a direct conversation, the AFC indicated that he possessed materials (including letters from the opposing party) that were never disclosed or entered into the record. If accurate, this raises concerns about: Completeness of the information presented to the court Whether all relevant factors affecting the child’s welfare were considered 5. Courtroom Environment and Conduct During testimony, opposing counsel was permitted broad latitude in questioning, which at times became argumentative or dismissive in tone. There was limited intervention by the court to maintain balance, and some of my responses were struck as nonresponsive when they attempted to provide context. This created the impression that: Testimony was not being evaluated on equal footing The overall environment discouraged full explanation of relevant facts 6. Post-Judgment Concerns During later proceedings, external involvement (including Catholic Charities) was introduced without a formal motion or evidentiary hearing. Additionally, references to potential counseling or supervised visitation were raised without supporting findings. These actions raised concerns about: Procedural due process Whether decisions were being made based on evidence versus discretion alone Closing Perspective Family Court decisions carry long-term consequences for both parents and children. For that reason, the process must not only be fair, but clearly appear fair. The concerns outlined above relate to: Record accuracy Evidence handling Role boundaries between judicial officers Procedural consistency These are not minor issues—they go directly to the integrity of the process. This review is offered in good faith, with the intention of encouraging transparency, accountability, and confidence in the system