The Commission on Judicial Conduct of the State of Arizona disclosed this week that a complaint, with case number #21-421, has been dismissed on June 30, 2022.

The complaint alleged a series of improper rulings and biases during a proceeding to terminate his parental rights.

The Complaint states in pertinent part:

“. . . She has ruled inaccurately and created the situation that cause a faulty judgment of her own design. She was advised by the counsel of my children __ as well as the preponderance of evidence that this case __ was problematic as it was illustrating the reason of the malicious effort __ to keep my children away using the legal system. There are multiple reports, and even the case judgment that has and does rule in my favor.”

The Complaint continues:

“Her __ trial on __ didn’t rule using the merits of my case, evidence or advise of cousel [sic]. She allowed __ to get away with her actions. I believe Judge __ should be reprimanded to the fullest extent of the commission….

Judge __  should have ruled accordingly and she absconded her responsibility to her duties. I believe she would anticipated an appeal on her ruling as it is evident and she can see how Mr.  __ has advocated for my daughter by continuing the appeal process. So she (  __ ) absconded her responsibility with malicious intent on doing me harm while saving her record. She advised my counsel incorrectly and didn’t hear arguments that she advised incorrectly.

I have continually won legal fees as a result of opposing sides behavior, this should have been the same outcome and it should have been dismissed with prejudice.”

Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the complaint, stating among others:

“The role of the Commission on Judicial Conduct is to impartially determine whether a judicial officer has engaged in conduct that violates the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct or Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution. There must be clear and convincing evidence of such a violation in order for the Commission to take disciplinary action against a judicial officer.”

The dispositive portion of the Order reads:

“The Commission does not have jurisdiction to overturn, amend, or remand a judicial officer’s legal rulings. The Commission reviewed all relevant available information and concluded there was not clear and convincing evidence of ethical misconduct in this matter. The complaint is therefore dismissed pursuant to Commission Rules 16(b) and 23(a).”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.