Legal Knowledge: 1 star. My concerns with Judge Brooke Burns are not based simply on receiving unfavorable rulings. They are based on what I personally experienced as repeated procedural irregularities, dismissive courtroom conduct, and an appearance that important evidence was not being meaningfully considered. I observed eye-rolling and other dismissive body language while serious issues involving my children were being addressed. I also experienced the court appearing late while litigants were expected to be present and prepared, followed by proceedings in which I felt rushed when attempting to address significant custody and due-process issues. I was particularly concerned by comments made from the bench that I understood to include statements that the judge was “incensed,” that her “blood pressure” was elevated, and a comparison involving taking better care of dogs. I believe statements of that nature were inappropriate in proceedings determining fundamental parent-child relationships. I would encourage anyone reviewing this issue to listen to the actual court recording for the precise wording and context. My procedural concerns were equally serious. I believe important evidence and motions were not reviewed or addressed before decisions affecting custody and visitation were made. I repeatedly attempted to bring evidence and legal issues before the court, yet I experienced motions being left unresolved, filings being rejected or not substantively considered, and significant issues proceeding without the written findings I believed were necessary to explain the court’s decisions. I also had serious concerns about the court granting substantial parental or custodial authority to a nonparent, and permitting an individual who was not, at relevant times, a party to the proceeding to participate or speak in a manner that I believed affected the outcome. My concern is not merely that the court disagreed with me; it is whether the proper procedural safeguards, evidentiary standards, party status, and parental-rights protections were applied before giving a nonparent authority over my children. When decisions this serious are being made, I believe the court should clearly identify what evidence it reviewed, decide properly filed motions, make the legally required findings, maintain neutrality toward every litigant, and ensure that only individuals with proper standing or authorized participation influence the proceeding. Taken together—the courtroom demeanor, comments from the bench, unresolved motions, concerns about evidence not being reviewed, participation by nonparties, and decisions affecting parental rights—I came away with profound concerns about whether I received a neutral and procedurally fair hearing. and the conflict with her chosen gal concerns with Kendra Lotstein as GAL go far beyond disagreeing with her recommendations. They concern what she knew about my children’s circumstances and distress, what was documented in her own records and communications, and what I believe was ultimately minimized, omitted, or inadequately investigated before recommendations affecting my children were made. Throughout this case, I repeatedly raised concerns about my children’s emotional wellbeing, behavior, school issues, statements, and distress. I believe there were significant warning signs that required careful, neutral investigation. In my experience, information concerning those issues was not treated with the same scrutiny as information being used against me. I was particularly concerned because Kendra had information acknowledging the loving bond between me and my children and information concerning children who wanted to live with me. Despite that, I do not believe the court received a complete and balanced presentation of what the children were saying, experiencing, and demonstrating. I also have serious concerns about communications with my children regarding the litigation. In my view, children should not be placed in the middle of adult court proceedings, given interpretations of what is happening in court, or left believing that they are responsible for legal outcomes. A GAL’s involvement with children carries enormous influence, and that influence should be exercised with exceptional neutrality and care. My concerns increased when I compared what I understood Kendra knew with subsequent recommendations and positions. When a child’s school performance, behavior, emotional condition, statements, or other circumstances materially deteriorate, I expect a GAL to investigate why—not simply document the condition and move forward. I also experienced inconsistencies concerning visitation. Information supporting the parent-child bond and less restrictive contact existed, yet my contact with my children remained severely restricted. I believe the underlying records, emails, visitation documentation, and recommendations should be compared chronologically to determine whether the restrictions actually corresponded with the evidence available to the GAL at each point in time. I had additional concerns regarding access to information and records, fees requested for responses or records, changing requirements concerning how documents were served, and what I perceived as increasingly difficult communication after concerns were raised about the GAL’s performance. Most importantly, I believe a GAL entrusted with protecting children’s best interests must follow the evidence wherever it leads—even when that evidence conflicts with an earlier position or recommendation. Evidence of children’s distress should trigger meaningful investigation, not be minimized because it is inconvenient to the existing placement. I encourage anyone evaluating Kendra Lotstein’s work in my case to compare her reports and recommendations against her underlying notes, emails, the children’s documented statements, school information, collateral-source information, visitation-supervisor records, and the complete timeline of what she knew and when she knew it. Fairness & Impartiality: absolutely not fair doesn’t look at evidence has already decided an outcome before trial, has personal relationship outside court doors with other petty Judicial Temperament: bi polar, angry, not neutral offers her own opinion while relating cases to how she grew up, this is not neutral nor is it fair Communication: cuts you off does not perform Tasks like a normal legal court hose Timeliness: shows up 30 minutes late to 45 minutes late with a coffee in her hand. I’m acting like she is. The queen of the world is very very entitled Hobbs in the backseat of her own car with the court admin driving her around and I thought the court admin was supposed to be responsible for a part of the judge and everything else .