Associate Judge 246 threatens to charge Attorney cost to Compliant.

When Associate court Judge for Court 246 threaten to charge attorney fees to a client if they did not meet a higher standard for evidence, she was saying it was too late to begin and conclude the hearing that was reset several times and if we forced her to begin the hearing and we did not meet her elevated standard for evidence she was going to charge the complainant she was showing favoritism for the one side against the other. Prior decisions from the court were clearly in favor of the other side and this is another example of bias against one side of this case. Another is when the judge requested two children be interviewed in chambers, interviewed one child, sent the other home them demand the child she did not interview return to court, only to conduct a hearing prematurely without the child or attorney even when the attorney informed the court that he was in the building in a different court. With evidence under oath including a video of the mother chasing a visitor with an electric say and the children hastily running for safer ground, the judge returned the child to the mother and turned the case to CPS. Days prior to the hearing Sugar Land police refused to forcefully remove the child from the care of the father after a hostile attempt from the mother to secure release of the child. The Judge ignored the judgement of a Senior police officer and returned the child without a hearing involving the father and his attorney who were in the court. Judges who show preference for one client or another so distinctly should not be removed from further involvement with the case. Family court intimidation has to be brought to an end and the court should be fair, impartial and work in the interest of all parties.