Comment #: CA53674
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Long story short, about 6 months ago, Judge Lafferty gave me full custody of my 16 year old son. His mother has been brainwashing him since he was 5, and we even had two therapists confirm this in court. She has manipulated him terribly, emotionally terrorized him, and even threatened punishment if he didn't do her bidding and defy anything that I said. She spent years alienating me from his life, and we had a mountain of evidence substantiating this.

Shortly after this order, my son wasn't cooperating with the order of changing schools and living with me, and Judge Lafferty did absolutely nothing to enforce that mom or son follow the order. My son simply said that he's not living with me, and Lafferty allowed it. He then proceeded to give mom temporary custody while he figured out what do to with our son.

Now, coming the end of the trial, Judge Lafferty decided that he was going to give me full "legal" custody, yet allow my son to remain living with mom, an hour away, and staying in his current school.
That fact that he thinks that leaving him in her care is acceptable, given all of the evidence and therapist testimony, is absolutely appalling.

Additionally, in our last hearing, he literally said that he was going to enforce his original order (giving me sole custody). Now, he's changing his mind because he had a one on one discussion with our son (in private), and he now believes that my son is doing better. Judge Lafferty is literally allowing a minor to call the shots, and he is paying ZERO attention to ANY of the serious facts of the matter, including a mother who has literally being abusing her son emotionally since he was 5 years old.

This man needs to be disbarred. Anybody who would do this to a child, keeping them in custody with a brainwashing parent, should not be allowed to practice law. This is a tragedy, to say the least. I feel bad for the other victims at the hand of Judge Lafferty, and I feel even worse for my son, who now thinks that his mom's actions were acceptable because the judge is allowing him to stay with her.

Comment #: CA53121
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Riverside County, CA and many of the entities within are corrupt and very racist and those who are in power allow it to happen because of people like Judge Lafferty who pick and choose who and how he will help. My rapist has the wherewithal to manipulate justice and truth because the police who would not allow me to press charges after I was told to send in why I was afraid, his lying lawyer Julie S. Page and [redacted by Ed.] Judge Sean P. Lafferty . As a black woman I am tired of my basic human rights being disregarded and people knowing what is happening but doing nothing to hold my rapist and his super minions accountable.
My rapist and the molester of our children has raped and beat me for years, assaulted our children, forged my name on tax documents after Community Action Partnership of Riverside, CA did my tax, sex trafficked intimate pictures and video of me, had my mail go to his home more than a few times and while he has lived in Nuevo, CA, had my vehicle documents changed to him at one point, had my doctor lie and say I had been institutionalized but not allow me to get the records, broken protection orders, lied to the court, put my whereabouts out and caused me to be assaulted twice. His lawyer lied to the courts, saying she did not get the documents she asked me to send her, sent court forms to my sister who never gave them to me, lied and said she did not have a way to contact me when she had my phone number and post office box. The Superior Court and Judge kept lying to me any time I would call or go down for clarity and did not want me to know the exact date for court. I was told my contact information was not on record when Inland Counties Legal Services were to have sent the information. Judge Lafferty signed off on documents knowing the lies that were told and allowed them. I was not afforded to make a police report and all my efforts shut down. I try to respect people and their positions but I have to say “It is because of people like this Judge who are the problem” The law is for some and not all and with the implicit bias of this court nothing will be fair.

Comment #: CA52712
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
There really seems to be racial and religious bias from Sean Lafferty. It also is clear he has associations and favoritism with attorneys and once he decides which party he is going to side with (typically) the father, no matter the patterns of abusive behavior and coercive control that are evidential; he sticks to giving that person what the request. Circumstances could change but he will ignore the hard evidence. Ask for a different judge if you haven’t already. You have a one time chance to do so. He will financially drain you and aid the doctors, minors counsel, lawyers to strip you of your civil rights in any way he can.

Comment #: CA52000
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I earnestly hope that the questionable conduct and misuse of authority by Sean Lafferty are brought to light and addressed promptly. I encourage others on here to formally submit a complaint to the Judicial Commissioner of California regarding the conduct of Judge [Sean P Lafferty ]. Despite the passage of Piquis Law SB331, this judge has shown reluctance to enhance their knowledge on issues profoundly impacting lives.

It is crucial to highlight that the judge appears to operate without proper oversight, employing unethical language and behavior while making unlawful and untimely rulings. Notably, the judge's behavior is evident within the courtroom, as he appears without a robe before and after proceedings, adopting a posture that may be perceived as prejudicial. There are instances where bias is apparent, and he refrains from recusal or disclosing interpersonal connections until hearings commence or during "off the record" interactions.

Similar to other professions, consistent reviews of this judge's performance are imperative. An assessment of his ego and a rigorous examination to eliminate biased opinions are warranted to ensure lawful rulings based on facts and evidence. Moreover, I advocate for the judge's education in areas such as Coercive Control, Narcissism, and Domestic Violence Patterns that extend beyond physical manifestations, encompassing a deeper understanding of these issues. It is clear that he will not admit to wrongdoing, unlawful judgement or the ability to reconsider decisions that are clearly wrong. I desperately urge the State of California to sanction him and bring about Justice to the persons he is affecting. Many children’s lives are currently impacted by this judge and he does not take action to protect children over parental rights!

Comment #: CA45427
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This judge does NOT look at both sides on family law!!!! [Redacted by Ed.] An absolute disgrace to his judicial oath!!!!!

Comment #: CA41196
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Sean Lafferty needs to be incarcerated for the rest of his life based on his severe moral terptitudes demonstrated by egregious Civil Rights violations in the Parker/Ross matter, his unbridled support of the YAT program that was ruled Unconstitutional, and his continued Civil Rights violations as a Family Court Judge. He is the epitome of corruption and disdain for the law.

Comment #: CA40543
Rating:1.0
Comments:
When judge James T. Warren illegally awarded my ex-wife 50% of my military retirement without any due process, I attempted to get the order set-aside. Judge Lafferty claimed that he researched the laws and upheld Judge Warren's decision. Judge Lafferty was not honest in stating he had researched the laws because if he had, he would not have ruled the way he did. Because I was in the military more than 14 years prior to getting married and another 5 years after divorce, California law does not permit awarding an ex-spouse 50% of the entire service time (36 years)I was only married 16 years. Additionally, there was nothing in my marital Settlement Agreement that stated my ex-wife would get any portion of my retirement, but the court did not seem to be concerned with due process. The court relies on the word of a corrupt attorney named Richard R. Muir (a third-party QDRO attorney), who has no knowledge of military retirements, but sells himself as an expert. Additionally, there was nothing legal in the the QDRO submitted to the court by Richard Muir, but the judges don't take the time to research the laws. In the order awarding my ex-wife 50% of my retirement, there is an indemnification clause that states the following:

"If Member takes action that prevents, decreases, or limits the collection by Former Spouse of sums to be paid hereunder (including but not limited to a combination of benefits with any other retired pay, and waiver for any reason, including as a result of other federal service Chapter 61 disability, or Combat Related Special Compensation), then pursuant to In re Marriage of Smith (supra) and In re Marriage of Krempin 70 CA 4th 1008, 83 CR2d 134 (CA-1, Div 4, 1999), and In re Marriage of Krempin 70 CA 4th 1008, 83 CR2d 134 (CA-1, Div 4, 1999), Member shall make payments to Former Spouse directly in an amount sufficient to eliminate, as to Former Spouse, the effects of the action taken by Member."

Indemnification clauses regarding VA disability offsets were made illegal in the 2017 United States Supreme Court case of Howell v Howell and prior to that the 1989 case of Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989). Additionally, since Chapter 61 disability and Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) are different than Military Retainer Pay (MRP), they are not covered under 10 USC §1408 for property division and cannot be legally addressed by any state court nor can any court require a retiree to indemnify a Former Spouse in these situations. Since that is the case and it is not considered property, it is not divisible and Federal law prohibits states from requiring indemnification to former spouses under these circumstances.

The court also relied on Richard Muir's and my ex-wife's false claims that I refused to provide my reserve retirement points to Mr. Muir. It was Mr. Muir's responsibility to obtain that information from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, as the court did not order me to provide the information, nor did it have the legal authority to order me to provide it.

Judge Lafferty should have taken the time to research that and rule according to the law instead of making the claim that he had and violating state and Federal laws.

Unfortunately, many judges and attorneys stupidly and/or ignorantly assume that military retirement is a pension and rule according to their assumptions instead of taking the time to research the laws and rule accordiingly.

Comment #: CA37383
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
This jackass has no business being the judge in Family Law.

Washed up prior criminal attorney who is biased towards his likeness of other Irish folk.