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

Attorney Average Rating:   1.1 - 3 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   1.0 - 7 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


Litigant

Comment #: CA9989
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This was the most UNJUST experience I have ever had in the pursuit of justice. I went in for a custodial issue, where she instructed me to provide more evidence. I then spent the next many months building a thick packet of incontrovertible evidence to the issue at hand, and then went back to present it in her court. She literally IGNORED all that I presented, and ruled the opposite, completely contrary to the evidence, and so leaving in place a continuing bad situation for my child. Until this experience, I thought a court of law decides on the merits of evidence, certainly not in opposition to it -- I suppose I was wrong.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8688
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Cuckoo Byrd has a lot of psychological problems that she is not willing to acknowledge. Expect her to take out her frustrations on you and your children!

Other

Comment #: CA8620
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Completely hoodwinked by opposing counsel. Either very [Redacted by Ed.] ! Does not consider both sides and even makes egregious statements in complete opposite of presented evidence. Inept in understanding the dissomaster input and ramifications. Allows for incomplete disclosure of assets ignoring clear substantiating evidence. Should not be presiding on bench.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA8569
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Cuckoo Byrd should be thrown off the bench. She doesn't read any of the paperwork and actually admitted this in our case on the record.

Litigant

Comment #: CA8456
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Christine Byrd needs to fly the coop! She has no business wearing this robe of distinction and should be disbarred. Coming from the solar power industry, she has no knowledge of family law and appears to be merely doing this for a nice cushy job as an arbitrator when she retires. She rules on opinion- her own, and not by law and makes unbelievable statements in court! For instance, she told the defendant legal advise during a trial! She told the petitioner which profession she should go into. She made rulings, even though the law clearly stated the opposite and she was reminded of it, then made threatening statements to the litigants should they dare to cross her! How many complaints does it take to get this woman off the bench?

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA7855
Rating:1.4
Comments:
Run, do not walk, to file your 170.6. Awful. Incompetent. Family law area with absolute no regard for the law. Blatantly biased. Knows most litigants cannot afford to appeal so gets away with violating every statute she wants. Complete travesty for litigants.

Other

Comment #: CA7765
Rating:1.0
Comments:
This justice is not blind. She judges with her eyes and not her mind. She reaches her conclusions before hearing both sides. She skims the material at best. To put it in her words, "This is clearly fraud". Proof of burden YOUR HONER? It is 'HER' belief. Belief has no place in a court room, facts and evidence do. Two things she CLEARLY ignores because she has GUT feelings. Get this biased woman off the bench!

Other

Comment #: CA6999
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I had Catherine Byrd as a judge in 2010.. petitioner had an attorney I was pro per after allowing the council for pet. to stand in open court and accuse me of being capable of murder for hire in a fam law hearing she had the nerve to tell me if I dared to contact the bar regarding his statements or the threatening emails he had been sending me for months id find myself on the short end of the stick in court.. even though it is my legal right as a American citizen to pursue due process and any civil rights violation sanctions against council or any court officer.. worst judge ever now I have lopez-giss.. things just got worse.. byrd 2nd worst judge ever

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA6952
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Quickly becoming one of the most appealed and overturned judges on Hill St.
Her rulings reek of back door deals or a complete disregard for children's safety and well being.
170.6 at all costs.

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.