Hon. Christine W. Byrd See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
Los Angeles County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 1 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 2 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation

Only items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating.


General Rating Criteria

* Temperament (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Scholarship (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Industriousness (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
* Ability to Handle Complex Litigation (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
* Punctuality (1=Chronically Late,10=Always on Time)
* General Ability to Handle Pre-Trial Matters (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
* General Ability as a Trial Judge (1=Not all Able, 10=Extremely Able)
Flexibility In Scheduling (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)


Criminal Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Plea Discussions (1=Not at all Involved, 10=Very Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Pretrial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Trial Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases Sentencing Stage (1=Pro-prosecution,10=Pro-defense)


Civil Rating Criteria (if applicable)

* Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation (1=Not at all Evenhanded,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Involvement in Settlement Discussions (1=Not at all Involved,10=Very Involved)
General Inclination (1=Pro-defendant, 10=Pro-plaintiff)
Comments




What others have said about Hon. Christine W. Byrd


Comments


Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6439
Rating:1.0
Comments:
In the view of child advocates; Byrd has no understanding of domestic violence dynamics, does not follow the law, Indifferent to child abuse, places children with parents who strike and alienate children rather than safe parents, makes rulings based on personal opinion and conjecture. Dangerous rulings, possibly politically motivated.

Litigant

Comment #: CA6407
Rating:1.0
Comments:
If you don’t have a lawyer and your family law case is assigned to Byrd the first you thing you do is file "AFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE PREEMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER" (Code Civ. Proc., §170.6), to get your case switched to another judge. The form can be found online and no reason is needed just sign the form and serve on other party and file proof of service.

Byrd's actions rise to the level of an abuse of discretion, as she now has made multiple ruling that are arbitrary and a unreasonable departure from precedent and settled judicial custom.

Byrd gives specialized treatment to attorneys over In Pro Per litigants, failing to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Byrd's actions equal a color of law violation while violating parent's civil rights and taking kids away from fathers based on her intuition as a white women who has never dealt with minority parents before taking the bench as she was a corporate lawyer before becoming a judge.

Byrd is fully aware of Family Code Section § 3025, that states “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, access to records and information pertaining to a minor child, including but not limited to, medical, dental, mental health and school records, shall not be denied to a parent because that parent is not the child’s custodial parent.”

However Byrd acts in defiance of common sense not making the information available to non-custodial parents or giving holidays schedules causing fathers to miss father's day with their children due to her ineptness.
Byrd will continues to rule in bad faith abusing her judicial discretion since the family court has no oversight and appeals are too costly.

Ever wonder why a father is not in a child's life, may not be his choice but the family courts or I mean Byrd's choice as she plays god on the bench ruining lives with the stroke of her pen.

Litigant

Comment #: CA6096
Rating:2.0
Comments:
inadequate or unfair. Doesn't read her cases, or perhaps she has preconceived opinions on certain people.
Indecisive and lack of knowledge on family law. relies too much on her weak memory.