Comment #: AZ2743
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Blaney is a very fair judge. He communicates clearly and is respectful to everyone. He is thorough and decisive.

Comment #: AZ2698
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
my family court case was mandated back to Judge Blaney Scott in 2021 after the Court of Appealed vacated and mandated Judge Adam Driggs 2019 ruling in my case.

SEE Courts of Appeal ruling online
https://casetext.com/case/jorgenson-v-giannecchini

In 2022, Judge Blaney Scott the new assigned Judge had to review this matter. He set a Evidentiary hearing of ONLY 1 hr and 1/2 after my mandated/vacated Driggs ruling.

Judge Blaney refused to review the exhibits that all BATES numbers from my lawyer and bluntley said in court "you expect me to read all this !" Got very upset and had an attitude in his tone of voice. My lawyer told Blaney "YES, your honor this case was mandated back and these are the exhibits that were part of Judge Driggs ruling".

NOT only was this Judge Blaney Bias, but he FAILED TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM courts of appeal when it stated on 5-6-21 the following on page 4 of the COA ruling: "...the court had no statutory power to order Mother to participate in long-term psychotherapy going forward. Because that order was the premise of the court’s ruling concerning parenting time, we vacate the parenting-time ruling and all subsequent orders concerning Mother’s psychotherapy."

Judge Blaney on his 4-27-2022 ME on this mandated hearing ONCE again WROTE A WHOLE SECTION ON MOTHER'S MENTAL HEALTH ALLEGATION AND PSYCHOTHERAPY and decreased Mother's parenting time further. BIAS.

Judge Blaney relatiated against Respondent, the Mother and punished her with removing PT even further.

This matter was reported to the JCommission on Judicial Conduct with result stating that on May 2023 after 9 months of open investigation - Dispositional Order in Case No. 22-212 in which the Commission dismissed your complaint. (Judge Scott Blaney)

Bias, prejudice and simply retaliation for having Court of Appeal rule in my filing request to state that Superior Court (Judge Driggs - "court had no statutory power to order Mother to participate in long-term psychotherapy going forward" and for "we are vacating the parenting-time ruling, we also vacate the attorneys’ fees award.
" (my little salary of $ 23K as a High School teacher aide was garnished to re-pay my ex $ 13,500 alleged legal fees spent, but approved by Judge Adam Driggs for Judge Blaney to revisit in the mandated hearing.

URL Case
http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?casenumber=FC2017-050317

"

Comment #: AZ2662
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Pompous, biased and does not review evidence. Makes his ruling based on his personal feelings and anyone making him feel less than superior even if wrong and proven false.