Hon. Rachel Cano See Rating Details
Judge
Superior Court
San Diego County
See Comments

Attorney Average Rating:   1.3 - 5 rating(s)
Non-Attorney Average Rating:   5.0 - 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


Please type what you see below:

    

What others have said about Hon. Rachel Cano


Comments


Litigant

Comment #: CA32300
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Judge Cano abuses her power and is seemingly proud of her judicial misconduct. She makes up her mind prior to the hearing, and refuses to hear evidence that would contradict her preconceived notions. She is rude, dismissive, distracted, and favors young male litigators. Judge Cano spends hours daydreaming, visibly grows weary and tired of doing her job, and allows male litigators to vent while she focuses on her computer, shuffles papers on her desk, or gets distracted by her nails. She puts families under extreme stress, and causes irrevocable harm to very small and defenseless children. She is especially favorable to white males, and seems to have a personal vendetta against females, particularly of color. Upon being assigned to Judge Cano, my lawyer warned me our case would be dependent on whether or not Judge Cano was having a “bad day” as she is known to be “moody.” Our trial was a disgrace and affront to democracy. Judge Cano is a danger to civil rights and should be removed from Family Court, if not impeached, for her morbid disregard of ethics, a fair trial, and obvious disdain for women and children.

Litigant

Comment #: CA32077
Rating:10.0
Comments:
Judge Cano was very fair, listened to both sides, read the large amount of filings and made a very clear and fair ruling that was proper and correct even if she did not give me the father in particular all of the ROs we filed she gave good reasoning as why she ruled how she did.

It would not surprise me if Judge Cano was promoted to higher court positions over time.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA31463
Rating:1.5
Comments:
Unprepared. Distracted. Appeared to doze off during hearing. Basis for ruling inexplicable. Maintained unsupervised visitation of minor child by abusive DV offender who appeared inebriated or high and yelled nonsensical outbursts twice during hearing. Judge ordered no change and did not follow FCS recommendation. Male party, who prevailed, had initiated hearing by filing muddled RFO even though his goal was to maintain current situation. Confused mother/other party answered Judge's question whether mother had concerns about child's well-being. Mother listed disturbing incidents and father confirmed angry demeanor with outbursts. Father's DV history and increasing anger issues were stated to Judge Cano, father's anger and erratic behavior were demonstrated in court in front of her, past incidents of father's abuse were explained in the papers, father's inappropriate angry hostility towards the mediator and towards the other party were described in the FCS report from mediator, who was uncertain about maintaining unsupervised visitation- yet Judge Cano left child in dangerous situation. In child interview, child expressed extreme anxiety- did not want to anger father. Child said whatever the father wanted was fine and would not answer direct questions about safety when with father. Possible race factor at play- violent father litigant white. Mother non-white. Judge maybe considers self white Hispanic? Judge Cano also favors male parties as well as male counsel while being unnecessarily harsh to female counsel and parties. Colleagues have reported same. Better to put male counsel in front of her, preferably white, if you want a favorable result for your client.
Clearly the incorrect result in the hearing in question. Judge Cano disregarded the welfare of a minor child in distress and caved to a belligerent and rude male party who called her "Mrs. Cano" pronounced KAY-no. It did seem that she fell asleep while each party spoke and she seemed disoriented and angry upon waking. Someone should file a complaint with the CJP for bias and non-performance (sleeping) if not abuse of authority in performance of judicial duties.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA31070
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Cold, dismissive, impatient, unwilling to hear evidence that contradicts her preconceived opinion about how to rule. Picked at her nails and adjusted things on her desk while litigant was speaking. Eventually granted custody of child to abusive criminal father who contradicted himself and demonstrably lies at every proceeding and in every filing. Showed strong bias in favor of young male litigants— in family court! Does not like to preserve mothers’ custody and tends to give more to father as well as reduce support to mother or rule that mother pays father, even if father significantly out-earns the mother. Just a few examples from observing a typical session including 4-6 cases. Judge Cano is unethical, biased, and vindictive. She triumphantly announces unnecessary extra rulings as punishment for the female party/mother. I noticed at least one time a mediator suggested attending a parenting communication class and that was the one part of the error-riddled mediation report she did not adopt, as if she did not like the idea of the parties spending time together. She neglected to correct what parties agreed were major errors and did not reflect either of their desires, simply adopting mediation reports as is, in a rush to ruin as many families as possible per session.
I thought she would be fair because she seems so accomplished, intelligent, and attractive in articles about her. She seems hardened, stubborn, volatile, resentful, and hell-bent on taking out her frustrations on women litigants, handing the male litigants extra advantages beyond what they asked for. She turns San Diego Family Court into a cruel sideshow. She appears to utterly lack empathy or objectivity. One man kept interrupting and yelling random irrelevant possibly-false accusations, perjuring himself, and Judge Cano allowed him to continue, to the discomfort of all present. It is clear she hates family law, and she shouldn’t be an authority on any matter in that courtroom. Judge Cano is a destroyer of families and traumatizer of innocent children who suffer the lifelong consequences of her narcissistically arbitrary man-favoring decisions. San Diego needs her rotation to be over.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CA23441
Rating:1.9
Comments:
Lack of diligence. Predetermination of verdict prior to testimony.

Overall a Fanily Court Judge, Deputy District Attorney, and yet still an open and outspoken "Womans Rights Advocate". How is there no bias?

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: CA11798
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Great judge, thorough.