Hon. Andrea M. Stewart

Racial Double Standards & Coercion. withholding exculpatory evidence,due to her issues with impartiality her Name was removed from judgeship position. but of course the brainwashed racist that support her steam rolled that! I hate her Legal Knowledge: Disgusting,Bias,A manipulative person,A constant liar,

Base Context — Visitation and Custody Modification After Support Enforcement and New Partner Involvement / Hon. Andrea M. Stewart Hon. Andrea M. Stewart presided over visitation and custody proceedings that, in my view, resulted in a retaliatory and legally unsupported custody shift away from a military mother and domestic-violence survivor. This occurred despite prior orders requiring gradual visitation, the father’s years-long absence by his own choice or agreement, documented abuse and criminal-history concerns, and ongoing child-safety issues. Key Facts Judge Stewart failed to enforce prior orders requiring gradual visitation before expanding custody for a parent who had been absent for several years. Instead, she later permitted a drastic custody change that appeared to follow my efforts to enforce support, challenge her lack of enforcement, and raise abuse and child-safety concerns she dismissed and was overruled on. My military status appeared to be used against me despite protections meant to prevent military service from being weaponized in custody proceedings. After her rulings were challenged, Judge Stewart brought in a GAL whose role appeared focused on supporting the prior custody outcome rather than conducting a neutral best-interest investigation. Evidence related to domestic violence, CPS testimony, SANE documentation, child-safety concerns, and corroborating records were minimized or ignored, while allegations against me were elevated despite contradictory evidence. The case also raised concerns that court-appointed or court-connected actors reinforced the same narrative to protect the custody outcome. As a pro se litigant, I was treated differently than when counsel was present, denied or restricted procedural protections, and not given clear explanations for major rulings. Judge Stewart’s rulings directly affected my parental rights, my ability to protect my children, and the children’s safety. The process appeared to favor narrative control over evidence, procedure, and the children’s best interests. Legal Knowledge: Judge Stewart failed to enforce prior orders requiring gradual visitation for a parent who had been absent for years by choice or agreement and had significant abuse and criminal-history concerns. She then permitted a major custody shift without adequately explaining the legal basis. Her rulings appeared to disregard military-parent protections, domestic-violence considerations, evidentiary standards, prior orders, and best-interest custody factors. In my opinion, this reflected a serious failure to apply the law fairly or competently. Fairness & Impartiality: Judge Stewart did not appear fair or impartial. Her rulings felt outcome-driven rather than evidence-driven. When challenged, she brought in a GAL whose involvement appeared to support the prior custody decision instead of neutrally investigating the children’s best interests. Evidence from my side was discounted, while claims supporting the opposing party were credited despite contradictory records. The process created the appearance of a closed system where court-appointed actors reinforced one another’s narratives to preserve a predetermined custody outcome. Judicial Temperament: Judge Stewart’s temperament was deeply concerning. She treated me differently when I appeared pro se than when an attorney was present, restricted procedural protections, and allowed an uneven courtroom process. She made demeaning remarks, including calling me a “sad excuse of a mother,” while I was raising abuse and child-safety concerns. Her conduct appeared punitive toward a mother, domestic-violence survivor, and military parent who challenged her rulings and sought protection for her children. Communication: Judge Stewart failed to clearly explain the legal basis for refusing to enforce prior gradual-visitation orders or for later major custody changes. Significant rulings were issued without meaningful legal reasoning, and requests for clarification were ignored, inadequately addressed, or entirely manipulated against the record on file. This made it difficult to understand the court’s reasoning, preserve objections, or meaningfully challenge decisions. In a case involving domestic violence, military-parent protections, child-safety concerns, and years of parental absence, that lack of transparency was especially damaging. Timeliness: Judge Stewart’s handling of timing and the court record raised serious concerns. Rulings were delayed, then justified in ways that appeared to misrepresent, reframe, or selectively characterize the submitted record. The timing and wording of decisions created the appearance that the record was reshaped after the fact to support a preferred custody outcome. This raised serious concerns about accuracy, fairness, and integrity. Several court case files were later “lost”, and later found once her judgement was final.