"The Robing Room: CT State Judges

Add your own rating

E-Mail Address ()

Confirm E-mail Address

Zip

Occupation

Add a comment only

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. Marylouise Schofield

Comments

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: CT143
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Not able to figure out career litigants or con artists. Our families and our children, most especially, deserve better. Until we take the profit and fraud out of court and hold litigants accountable for lying on financials and custody, we will continue to have a fool's court. She ordered a calendar without grey areas without any dates to submit. Gave court GAL & his tenant, a "scheduler" free ride for several years without any oversight. Influenced by attorneys not truth.

Litigant

Comment #: CT80
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Appalling. Biased. Unprofessional. Corrupt. Ignorant.
Cruel. Ineffective. Vindictive.

Violated statutes. Ruled out of jurisdiction. Invaded third party minor's small trust fund to pay unnecessary GAL/AMC bills. Re-opened custody without a motion before the court, in chambers, despite custody agreement having been made a court order just weeks before. "Passed" on 15 consecutive months of contempt of child support motions and froze assets of mother, before trust fund invasions. Relied on defendant's unsigned financial affidavit while ignoring plaintiff's signed affidavit. Refused to address motions before her. Punished plaintiff for consolidating cases after she refused to address motions. Mocked plaintiff on day of dissolution for having no remaining assets, after the judge dragged the case out for an additional 15 months and because she would not hear plaintiff's motions, and after reopening custody without a compelling reason or a motion to do so. Froze plaintiff's arbitration award without proper jurisdiction, denying plaintiff assets to address basic needs of children. Ordered a child to participate in therapy that was deemed inappropriate by 6 mental health professionals, ordered plaintiff not to speak with mental health professionals, and conducted more than one contempt hearing against plaintiff based on plaintiff's "failure" to participate in said therapy. Ordered child's trust fund invaded to pay tuition after child was withdrawn from school for medical reasons related to inappropriate therapy. Allowed child to remain unschooled for 3 months while defendant denied child medication and financial support.

She refused to grant a dissolution of the marriage until plaintiff's appeal was withdrawn.

Judge Schofield destroyed our financial security by freezing legitimate assets of plaintiff, refusing to enforce financial orders, forcing upon litigants a second custody battle, invading children's protected educational funds, and refusing to conduct hearings.

She is responsible for abusing a child by proxy, forcing him repeatedly into inappropriate "therapy", and causing him to lose his position in school as well as his funding for future schooling and therapy.

We have not recovered, and I fear we never will. By the way, the second custody agreement is nearly identical to the first...

Litigant

Comment #: CT46
Rating:2.0

Comments:
Many attorneys will state off the record that she does not know what she is doing.She lets her prejudice enter into her decisions -- e.g., she has stated that members of the military are bullies. (This may be because her husband was a member of the military.)