Had a hearing on May 4th.

Clearly commissioner Burdick showed signs of favoritism towards women.

1st case:

Petitioner: Male

Attorney: Mr. Plott

Repsondant: Female

Attorney: none

Attorney Mr. Plott, stated on recording that the judge is clearly punishing his client for the mother's actions. He also asked, Mr. Burdick, if he read the declaration. Commissioner Burdick got upset over being accused of such claims. Mr. Burdick, then apologizes to the court room for the length of the case. He stated his intentions was for the case to be quick.

Mr. Burdick then proceeds to walk the mother through how to proceed in her case. He was clearly assisting the female respondant. Ignoring the claims of the petitioner. Mother declares daycare costs $1600 and the judge orders the petitioner to pay half, if he wants week-on/week-off. Without evidence, client is ordered to pay additional to child support for daycare fees the petitioner clearly stated he will not use during his weekly visits with children. Mother states daycare charges monthly fees and do not prorate. Instead of ordering mother to find alternstives he orders father to pay for it.

2nd Case:

Petitioner: Male

Attorney: none

Respondant: Female

Attorney: Mr. Ghan

Clearly, Mr. Burdick favored the mother in this case. He ignored the petitioner's claims against the mother. He accused the petitioner of making the case highly conflicted, when it was clearly the mother's doing. He provided no assistance to the Male in this case.

The male in this case, afterwards, was seen talking to Mr. Plott. I confirmed the male plans to hire Mr. Plott.

3rd Case:

Petitioner: Female

Attorney: none

Respondant: male

Attorney: Mr. Ghan

Mr. Burdick clearly favored the woman. By addressing her and helping her throughout the case. The male had health conditions and couldn't come up with the total balanced owed for the sale of his home. Commissioner Burdick ignored claims and asked for evidence from the male.

Notes:

Not once did he ask for evidence from any female prior but asked every male for proof of claims. I finally saw the pattern when he addressed the female, in the prior case, all friendly and chippery.

On my case, the mother moved days prior to the hearing. i found out about the move the night before the hearing when i tried to return my son to the old address. I was given no address or the courtesy notice that she moved. My attorney brought this before the commissioner who immediately turned it down and stated i should bring this to the mediation which was slotted a month later. He snapped out the orders that he will not change the current custody orders when i attorney asked for temproary custody chsnge. This is the 2nd time he has allowed the mother to move with child prior to the courts permissions.

This is unethical, and his pattern of misconduct must be stopped!