This is how the saga in the Riverside Superior Court began. In December of 2009, a commissioner rubber stamped a mediator’s recommendation when there was no agreement to the concoction at the hearing or in writing pursuant to CA evidence code section 1118-1121. At the hearing it was specifically stated “I do not agree”, yet the commissioner proceeded despite the evidence that was presented at that hearing, which mandated that the children according to the best interest of the child standard remain with the other parent.
This commissioner had no interest in hearing anything according to any legal standard of the law, as his goal was retaliation. So imagine that you find out a few months later that this commissioner acted out of retaliation as a CCP 170.6 challenge was filed against him. This was the message conveyed by an attorney to the litigant, who was closely affiliated with the court.
This is the extent of the impartiality and integrity that the judicial officers present to the public in the Riverside Superior Court; abusing the law in an abuse of discretion merely to “teach” a litigant a lesson, destroying the lives of children and that parent.