Support Modification Communication: Judge Johnson explained that he was modifying what he viewed as an exorbitant support amount, and he did communicate the general basis for his decision. I rate communication lower because he did not appear open to revisiting the context behind the original support ruling. He also did not review the evidence from the original ruling in enough depth before modifying it. Because the prior amount was tied to broader financial misconduct and an agreement meant to recover funds, the lack of engagement with that context was frustrating and left the ruling feeling incomplete. Legal Knowledge: Judge Johnson appeared to understand the county rules and procedural limits well, including how support-modification issues are handled and how domestic-related criminal matters may not move forward unless taken up by an already overwhelmed Commonwealth’s Attorney. I did not rate him a 5 because he dismissed or declined to fully consider the accounting of business assets, which I believe was highly relevant to the support calculation and the broader financial context of the case. Fairness & Impartiality: Judge Johnson dismissed several thousand dollars in arrears and did not fully consider business assets when reviewing the new support calculations. He appeared understandably concerned by the high monthly support amount previously ordered, but I do not believe he gave enough weight to the reason that amount had originally been set. In my case, there was significant prior evidence regarding over $100,000 in funds taken by the petitioner. The respondent had agreed not to pursue criminal accountability if those funds were returned through an enforceable structure, such as spousal support. Without considering that context, the modification ruling felt incomplete and unfair, even if the court was trying to correct what appeared on its face to be an unusually high support amount. Judicial Temperament: Judge Johnson had a generally kind and respectful demeanor. However, on the day of the ruling, he seemed distracted and somewhat irritated by issues unrelated to the merits of the case. There also appeared to be tension connected to the selected court reporter, which created concern that outside dynamics may have affected the courtroom environment. I cannot say whether that influenced the ruling, but it did appear to affect the tone and focus of the proceeding. Timeliness: Judge Johnson was timely, but not efficient. The ruling moved forward without a full review of the financial history, business assets, arrears, and context behind the original support order.