This appeal involved a custody modification that changed an agreed sole-custody arrangement with the mother to primary custody with the father after support-related filings, despite a record involving domestic violence, child-safety concerns, and serious criminal-history concerns involving violence and trafficking-related conduct. Legal Knowledge: Judge Levy upheld a custody modification that I believe was legally unsound and dangerous. The ruling removed children from a military mother and placed primary custody with a father who had been uninvolved for several years and had a documented history involving abuse and serious criminal conduct, including trafficking-related concerns. In my opinion, the court failed to meaningfully apply military-parent protections, domestic-violence considerations, child-safety standards, evidentiary requirements, and best-interest custody factors. The appeal was denied despite a record that should have required much closer legal review. Fairness & Impartiality: Judge Levy appeared to defer heavily to the GAL rather than independently review the request for relief and the record. I raised concerns that the GAL was not impartial, had undisclosed personal ties connected to the opposing party, and operated under a different name in a way that made those ties harder to identify. My request for relief was denied before meaningful context could be provided. The process felt less like independent appellate review and more like protection of the lower court’s outcome and the GAL’s narrative. I am not rating this a 1 because I do not believe Judge Levy fully understood the extent of the GAL’s influence or abuse of power in the lower court. However, his refusal to meaningfully engage with the justification for relief created a serious appearance of bias. Judicial Temperament: Judge Levy’s demeanor was generally calm and professional, and he did allow the minor child to speak in chambers. For that reason, I am not rating his temperament lower. However, he did not ask the necessary follow-up questions, and he appeared to minimize the child’s input as irrelevant. He also did not intervene when the opposing party scoffed and scowled at me during testimony, which affected the seriousness and neutrality of the proceeding. His courtroom demeanor was better than many, but he failed to maintain the level of control and attentiveness needed in a custody matter involving abuse and child-safety concerns. Communication: Judge Levy communicated his ruling through a letter of opinion, but the letter did not reflect what he stated at the hearing. It included information and accusations that were not meaningfully discussed in court, including matters that had been previously litigated or disproven in proceedings not involving Judge Levy. The letter read as though it relied heavily on the GAL’s narrative rather than independent judicial analysis. It also appeared to include information that only the GAL would have emphasized based on her personal ties and involvement outside the narrow issues before the court. The opinion did not adequately address the request for relief, the legal defects in the lower court ruling, the military-parent issues, the abuse record, the child-safety concerns, or why the child’s input was discounted. I am not rating this a 1 only because he did allow some communication from the minor child in chambers. Timeliness: Judge Levy handled the matter within a reasonable timeframe, so I would not rate him low on timeliness alone. However, the ruling appeared timely at the expense of meaningful review. The decision moved forward without adequately addressing the record, the request for relief, the abuse-related evidence, the GAL concerns, or the legal context behind the custody modification. He was timely, but not thorough. Speed does not equal efficiency when the ruling fails to engage with the central issues.