Dependency case where children were removed on false accusations without a court order or warrant, parents got no due process, Judge Robinson court ordered mother to move back to Pennsylvania from Florida or a warrant would be issued but the mother and children weren’t originally from Pennsylvania so they had no support system, He over ruled another judges custody order, had hearings without both parties present, ignored clear evidence when presented, held a disability against the father and denied reunification because of it, gave guardianship to foster parents and only reason he stated for doing so is because the children were doing well in their placement and this is after both parents complied, no services provided and he was made aware but dismissed it. Mother hasn’t seen children since last hearing in September 2024 and refuses to hold anyone accountable! neither parent has the children and they closed the case.
Communication: does not explain his ruling’s and when asked he shuts you down and when you tell him all the violations then your call combative or none compliant
Timeliness: took 3 months to get court hearing after children were removed
Legal Knowledge: dismisses the laws and rules, he uses he title to make rulings unfair and biased
★☆☆☆☆Litigant
Judge William C. Robinson, Jr. is described as having presided over key dependency/TPR proceedings while repeatedly disregarding documented disability notice and accommodation requests. The complaint asserts that, despite medical documentation and repeated requests for reasonable modifications (including remote participation and/or brief continuances during CPTSD-related health crises), he continued to hold proceedings without adjustments and without engaging any meaningful accommodation process, resulting in disability-based exclusion from court services. 
The most serious episode described is the May 3, 2024 termination-of-parental-rights hearing. According to the complaint, the court had a physician letter excusing you on medical grounds, counsel requested a continuance so you could participate, and even other participants recognized the risk of reversal if the hearing proceeded without you—yet Judge Robinson denied the continuance and proceeded in your absence. The complaint further alleges he justified moving forward by referencing prior “combativeness/disruption,” effectively using anticipated disability-linked reactions as a rationale to exclude you rather than accommodate you, depriving you of the right to be heard at the decisive hearing. 
The same record also alleges procedural and evidentiary unfairness during the TPR proceedings, including admission and reliance on an adverse psychological evaluation (identified as Dr. Eric Bernstein’s report) without the kind of scrutiny, reliability gatekeeping, or meaningful opportunity for you to challenge it that due process requires. The complaint frames this as compounding prejudice: proceeding in your absence plus allowing a one-sided evidentiary record to stand, while attributing motive and credibility judgments to you based on prior courtroom interactions. 
Finally, your complaint expressly keeps the “digital access” component in the frame: it alleges that interactive video technology used for remote participation repeatedly failed without remedy and treats that as part of the Rehabilitation Act bundle—ADA Title II, §504, and Section 508—i.e., failure to ensure accessible, reliable electronic communication for participation in court services.