"The Robing Room: SC 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:

Not an even number!

What others have said about Hon. Karen F. Ballenger

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: SC100
Rating:3.0

Comments:
In fairness, this is a difficult case.

Judge Ballenger appears to desire to act in the best interests of the children.

However, she has placed BLIND trust in the GAL(Attorney) in case..

The GAL is being pressed by a Former Elected 10th Circuit Solicitor to back her client. This client has paid a large sum of money. The GAL has elected to pursue avarice and failed in her duties as GAL.

Judge Ballenger ignored the reports/affidavits of 4 psychiatric experts and two forensic experts who have pointed to serious mental health issues,

Ignored Forensic experts findings that mother coached children and the experts opinion that mother has psychologically damaged the children.

Due to her blind trust in the GAL, she placed Primary Custody of children with Mother and placed Father on supervised visitation.

In this case, Judge Ballenger has failed in her role as an impartial judiciary.