"The Robing Room: CA State Judges

Hon. Mary E Kelly	See Rating Details
Judge Superior Court
Los Angeles County	See Comments

Attorney Average Rating: - 0 rating(s) Non-Attorney Average Rating: 1.0 - 2 rating(s)	Please send me alerts on this judge E-mail Address:

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. Mary E Kelly

Comments

Other

Comment #: CA55980
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Mary Kelly does not care about children. She pretends to “understand" and will often go off the record to speak about her brother who suffered from a past addiction of some sort and got his family back. There is no comparison to poor family’s who are being unjustly persecuted [Redacted by Ed.] My daughter was removed from me for a failed toxicology test while I was on LABATALOL. Which throws a false positive. BEFORE DETENTION, I enrolled in an outpatient rehab, took a parenting class, reached out to parents in partnership, and was attending counciling and NA. I stupidly agreed to a safety plan under duress. I cannot pee in front of others because of past trauma. So I was never able to test for the department. She took my daughter anyway. I did my case plan. And she still took my child. And my son after because I had already lost my 1st born. AND MY NEWBORN IN SEPTEMBER.
My daughter had NOTHING IN HER SYSTEM. AND SHE DIDNT CARE.
Mary Kelly steals children.

And ruined my family.
REBEL AND DRAKEO. AND NOVA YOUR MOTHER LOVES YOU.

I WAS BYPASSED FOR SERVICES BECAUSE THIS JUDGE SOLD HER SOUL A LONG TIME AGO.

Other

Comment #: CA53438
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
We believe this judge murdered our son. The Daily Journal called her a Blessing in Disguise right after she quoted “A number of Latina and women of color were being sterilized and that was really a form of eugenics. People didn't tend to believe it but I documented it pretty well.” It goes on and says she discovered unknown skills after she got a dependency court assignment.

The Social worker never informed us or even try to obtain our parental consent to deliver medical and mental health services to our children. The judge approved this order in secret because this was not at all discussed in court.

Shortly after she ordered our son detained and placed him under the supervision of DCFS, he passed away in his sleep. A mental health provider was delivering services to him at his placement and at his school. When we made a request for his medical and mental health records (Health and Education Passport) the Judge said “The father got them already.” NO, the father didn't. He filed a fee waiver form to get a copy of the case file, which didn't contain our son's PHI.

Litigant

Comment #: CA37559
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Favors abusers in dependency court. Constantly rules against/ignores DCFS recommendations