Family court case with DVPO and related criminal case, standing master appointed within first year of 3-4 year cases Communication: would default to “incomplete argument” when dealing with pro se litigants when any reasonable person would be able to understand what is being asked for and why in well written motions. no empathy for child separated from primary caregiver, clearly not reading motions Legal Knowledge: violated due process, did not perform best interest analysis prior to letting child be moved thousands of miles away, considered time in new environment during interim custody for primary basis in final order Fairness & Impartiality: did not consider violations of shared custody during interim of case as risk factor for child, downplayed drug addiction and child endangerment by parent given interim custody, made several false defamatory statements about the mother during hearings and in the final order which are not supported in the record and not brought up at trial, free state-appointed counsel was given to out of state father despite not meeting requirements, state appointed counsel represented father at trial despite mother being pro se, case outcome seemed pre-determined where state agencies aligned their “findings” against the mother without evidence, judge was head of judicial ethics committee, final outcome was not in child’s best interests. in related criminal case, public defender stated judge would retaliate for calling out biased statements and violations of constitutional rights. Judicial Temperament: appears to be professional but made several derogatory comments about mother during hearings which were not supported in the record. final custody order appeared to have been written by someone else and included biased language and mentioned issues not bright up at hearings or trial Timeliness: numerous motions were not ruled upon for months, at trial stated a final order should be expected in a month, after 6 months a final order was issued completely opposite what was expected