Child support modification/final decree drafting issues. Judicial Temperament: When I asked for clarification about the Fifth Amendment concern, the judge indicated she was “done explaining it,” which left me uncertain about whether testifying could affect another case. As a self-represented litigant trying to understand procedure, I felt I was not given sufficient opportunity to obtain clarification. The hearing concluded with the judge adopting the associate judge’s recommendation and leaving without further explanation. During my de novo hearing as a self-represented litigant, I had difficulty obtaining clarification from the court regarding whether testifying could affect a pending criminal matter. When I attempted to ask follow-up questions about the Fifth Amendment concern, the court indicated it was done explaining the issue, which left me uncertain about how to proceed. As someone without legal representation, I was trying to understand the procedural implications before deciding whether to testify. The interaction felt abrupt and made it difficult to navigate the hearing effectively. The court ultimately adopted the associate judge’s recommendation and concluded the hearing without further explanation, which contributed to the perception that there was limited opportunity to fully address the issues raised. --- Final Trial Update: 3 — Fair / Mixed Reasoning: The de novo hearing raised serious concerns for me because the court appeared to adopt the associate judge’s recommendation without clearly explaining independent reasoning on the record. I also left that hearing uncertain about how to navigate Fifth Amendment concerns while testifying, and I felt vague allegations were given weight without enough specificity or clear connection to the child. My view changed somewhat after final trial. Although the final outcome was still not what I requested, the court did appear to recognize important child-centered issues that had previously been minimized. In particular, the court directly addressed the role-boundary issue involving the mother’s boyfriend. The mother admitted that the child had called her boyfriend “dad” in her home without correction or redirection. The court did not treat that as harmless. The court made clear that the boyfriend is not the child’s father, that he is the mother’s boyfriend, and that the child’s actual father remains the child’s father. That mattered because my concern was not jealousy over the mother dating someone. The concern was the child being exposed to father-role confusion, especially where another adult male was being allowed into a father-adjacent role while the child’s father remained present, involved, and actively seeking equal parenting time. The court appeared to understand that distinction and, as I understood it, described the issue as going beyond ordinary alienation. The court also heard testimony that the mother had placed her boyfriend on the child’s school emergency contact list despite having been made aware of serious concerns about his background. That raised a legitimate question about whether the mother was applying neutral child-safety judgment or minimizing risk because of her romantic relationship. The court did not accept the opposing party’s full danger narrative against me. The court did not order supervised visitation, and it restored joint managing conservatorship. The court also acknowledged that it was obvious I deeply care about my child. Those points suggest the court did not view me as an unsafe or uninvolved parent. However, I still have concerns about the court’s application of the law and evidence. The court did not restore 50/50 parenting time, apparently because of the parents’ communication problems. From my perspective, that creates a risk that one parent can contribute to conflict or poor communication and then benefit from the court treating the conflict itself as the reason to deny equal parenting time. I also remain concerned about the child support order because the amount imposed creates a serious financial burden while I am also expected to maintain a stable home for the child. Overall, I would rate the court’s legal knowledge and application as mixed. The final trial showed more careful attention to some child-centered facts, especially the father-role boundary issue. But the reasoning behind the parenting-time and support outcome still left me with significant concerns about consistency, explanation, and whether the evidence was tied closely enough to the child’s best interests Fairness & Impartiality: Allegations were allowed without supporting evidence being presented. When I attempted to challenge the relevance or factual basis of those statements, my objections were overruled without explanation. My questions seeking clarification from the opposing party were met with vague answers that were not pressed for specificity by the court. The judge adopted the associate judge’s recommendation without explaining the reasoning behind the decision. During the de novo hearing, I felt the court did not apply the same level of scrutiny to both parties’ testimony. The opposing party made several allegations that were not supported by evidence presented during the hearing, yet those statements were allowed to stand without requiring specific incidents or clarification. When I attempted to challenge the relevance of those statements or ask the witness to define what she meant by feeling “unsafe,” the answers remained vague and were not pressed further by the court. As a self-represented parent attempting to address custody and parenting time, it appeared that unsubstantiated claims were given weight while my attempts to challenge them were limited. The court ultimately adopted the associate judge’s recommendation without explaining the reasoning on the record, which made it difficult to understand how the court evaluated the credibility of the testimony. --- Final Trial Update: 3 — Fair / Mixed Reasoning: The de novo hearing raised serious concerns for me because the court appeared to adopt the associate judge’s recommendation without clearly explaining independent reasoning on the record. I also left that hearing uncertain about how to navigate Fifth Amendment concerns while testifying, and I felt vague allegations were given weight without enough specificity or clear connection to the child. My view changed somewhat after final trial. Although the final outcome was still not what I requested, the court did appear to recognize important child-centered issues that had previously been minimized. In particular, the court directly addressed the role-boundary issue involving the mother’s boyfriend. The mother admitted that the child had called her boyfriend “dad” in her home without correction or redirection. The court did not treat that as harmless. The court made clear that the boyfriend is not the child’s father, that he is the mother’s boyfriend, and that the child’s actual father remains the child’s father. That mattered because my concern was not jealousy over the mother dating someone. The concern was the child being exposed to father-role confusion, especially where another adult male was being allowed into a father-adjacent role while the child’s father remained present, involved, and actively seeking equal parenting time. The court appeared to understand that distinction and, as I understood it, described the issue as going beyond ordinary alienation. The court also heard testimony that the mother had placed her boyfriend on the child’s school emergency contact list despite having been made aware of serious concerns about his background. That raised a legitimate question about whether the mother was applying neutral child-safety judgment or minimizing risk because of her romantic relationship. The court did not accept the opposing party’s full danger narrative against me. The court did not order supervised visitation, and it restored joint managing conservatorship. The court also acknowledged that it was obvious I deeply care about my child. Those points suggest the court did not view me as an unsafe or uninvolved parent. However, I still have concerns about the court’s application of the law and evidence. The court did not restore 50/50 parenting time, apparently because of the parents’ communication problems. From my perspective, that creates a risk that one parent can contribute to conflict or poor communication and then benefit from the court treating the conflict itself as the reason to deny equal parenting time. I also remain concerned about the child support order because the amount imposed creates a serious financial burden while I am also expected to maintain a stable home for the child. Overall, I would rate the court’s legal knowledge and application as mixed. The final trial showed more careful attention to some child-centered facts, especially the father-role boundary issue. But the reasoning behind the parenting-time and support outcome still left me with significant concerns about consistency, explanation, and whether the evidence was tied closely enough to the child’s best interests. Timeliness: The hearing itself occurred within a reasonable timeframe, but there was confusion regarding entry into the courtroom beforehand. All parties were present in the hallway breakout area before the scheduled time, waiting for the courtroom doors to open. The bailiff later indicated that the judge believed parties should already have been inside the courtroom, even though the courtroom had not yet been opened. This created some unnecessary frustration, as everyone present—including opposing counsel—had arrived on time and was waiting for access to the courtroom. Clearer coordination between courtroom staff and the court regarding when parties should enter would likely prevent similar confusion in the future. ---- Final Trial Update: 3 — Fair / Mixed Reasoning: The de novo hearing raised serious concerns for me because the court appeared to adopt the associate judge’s recommendation without clearly explaining independent reasoning on the record. I also left that hearing uncertain about how to navigate Fifth Amendment concerns while testifying, and I felt vague allegations were given weight without enough specificity or clear connection to the child. My view changed somewhat after final trial. Although the final outcome was still not what I requested, the court did appear to recognize important child-centered issues that had previously been minimized. In particular, the court directly addressed the role-boundary issue involving the mother’s boyfriend. The mother admitted that the child had called her boyfriend “dad” in her home without correction or redirection. The court did not treat that as harmless. The court made clear that the boyfriend is not the child’s father, that he is the mother’s boyfriend, and that the child’s actual father remains the child’s father. That mattered because my concern was not jealousy over the mother dating someone. The concern was the child being exposed to father-role confusion, especially where another adult male was being allowed into a father-adjacent role while the child’s father remained present, involved, and actively seeking equal parenting time. The court appeared to understand that distinction and, as I understood it, described the issue as going beyond ordinary alienation. The court also heard testimony that the mother had placed her boyfriend on the child’s school emergency contact list despite having been made aware of serious concerns about his background. That raised a legitimate question about whether the mother was applying neutral child-safety judgment or minimizing risk because of her romantic relationship. The court did not accept the opposing party’s full danger narrative against me. The court did not order supervised visitation, and it restored joint managing conservatorship. The court also acknowledged that it was obvious I deeply care about my child. Those points suggest the court did not view me as an unsafe or uninvolved parent. However, I still have concerns about the court’s application of the law and evidence. The court did not restore 50/50 parenting time, apparently because of the parents’ communication problems. From my perspective, that creates a risk that one parent can contribute to conflict or poor communication and then benefit from the court treating the conflict itself as the reason to deny equal parenting time. I also remain concerned about the child support order because the amount imposed creates a serious financial burden while I am also expected to maintain a stable home for the child. Overall, I would rate the court’s legal knowledge and application as mixed. The final trial showed more careful attention to some child-centered facts, especially the father-role boundary issue. But the reasoning behind the parenting-time and support outcome still left me with significant concerns about consistency, explanation, and whether the evidence was tied closely enough to the child’s best interests Communication: Lack of clear explanation about how my testimony could interact with a pending criminal case (at the time that was unresolved). Ending the discussion about the Fifth Amendment without resolving my confusion. Curt responses when I attempted to reference legal standards relevant to custody. Adopting the associate judge’s recommendation without explaining the reasoning on the record. Communication from the court during my de novo hearing was unclear and difficult to follow as a self-represented litigant. When I attempted to ask questions about how testifying might affect a pending criminal matter, the court stated it was “about done explaining the Fifth Amendment,” which left me uncertain about whether taking the stand could create legal risk. I was also told not to “recite law” when referencing legal standards related to custody during my opening statement. As a non-attorney trying to understand the framework the court would apply, this made it difficult to know how to present my case. Ultimately the court adopted the associate judge’s recommendation without explaining the reasoning on the record. Without an explanation of how the testimony and evidence were evaluated, it was difficult to understand how the court reached its decision. --- Final Trial Update: 3 — Fair / Mixed Reasoning: The de novo hearing raised serious concerns for me because the court appeared to adopt the associate judge’s recommendation without clearly explaining independent reasoning on the record. I also left that hearing uncertain about how to navigate Fifth Amendment concerns while testifying, and I felt vague allegations were given weight without enough specificity or clear connection to the child. My view changed somewhat after final trial. Although the final outcome was still not what I requested, the court did appear to recognize important child-centered issues that had previously been minimized. In particular, the court directly addressed the role-boundary issue involving the mother’s boyfriend. The mother admitted that the child had called her boyfriend “dad” in her home without correction or redirection. The court did not treat that as harmless. The court made clear that the boyfriend is not the child’s father, that he is the mother’s boyfriend, and that the child’s actual father remains the child’s father. That mattered because my concern was not jealousy over the mother dating someone. The concern was the child being exposed to father-role confusion, especially where another adult male was being allowed into a father-adjacent role while the child’s father remained present, involved, and actively seeking equal parenting time. The court appeared to understand that distinction and, as I understood it, described the issue as going beyond ordinary alienation. The court also heard testimony that the mother had placed her boyfriend on the child’s school emergency contact list despite having been made aware of serious concerns about his background. That raised a legitimate question about whether the mother was applying neutral child-safety judgment or minimizing risk because of her romantic relationship. The court did not accept the opposing party’s full danger narrative against me. The court did not order supervised visitation, and it restored joint managing conservatorship. The court also acknowledged that it was obvious I deeply care about my child. Those points suggest the court did not view me as an unsafe or uninvolved parent. However, I still have concerns about the court’s application of the law and evidence. The court did not restore 50/50 parenting time, apparently because of the parents’ communication problems. From my perspective, that creates a risk that one parent can contribute to conflict or poor communication and then benefit from the court treating the conflict itself as the reason to deny equal parenting time. I also remain concerned about the child support order because the amount imposed creates a serious financial burden while I am also expected to maintain a stable home for the child. Overall, I would rate the court’s legal knowledge and application as mixed. The final trial showed more careful attention to some child-centered facts, especially the father-role boundary issue. But the reasoning behind the parenting-time and support outcome still left me with significant concerns about consistency, explanation, and whether the evidence was tied closely enough to the child’s best interests Legal Knowledge: updated again after child support modification hearing and drafting issues hearing. So glad she's done January 2027; everything about this judge is beneath not only the decorum expectations of the court but also the actual functionality of due process and law itself. She's awful. she seems to also derive pleasure in criticizing and making derogatory remarks not only in relation to, but directly to unrepresented private US citizens to their face and to represented parties attorneys joking and laughing about an unrepresented parent who doesn't have the money to buy entry into the club as it were. she has no business operating anywhere near a courtroom or having anything to do with practicing law. she'd be more suited to being a bartender and probably should Go into that profession where her remarks maybe more well received and more fitting in the environment, potentially.