"The Robing Room: CA 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. Jannet P Santiso

Comments

Litigant

Comment #: CA55049
Rating:1.0

Comments:
Judge Santiso has shown a concerning pattern of behavior that raises serious questions about her fairness, especially towards mothers. She repeatedly interrupts during hearings, brings up irrelevant issues, and appears to go out of her way to support fathers exhibiting problematic behavior. Despite clear legal standards that apply to family law, she disregards them, claiming orders are valid even when they appear to violate constitutional rights. Judge Santiso has allowed harmful and defamatory statements about mothers to go unchallenged, stating she lacks the authority to strike them, and even permits violations of medical privacy without intervention. Important matters are unnecessarily delayed, often for months, only to be dismissed without due consideration.

If you are a woman or mother in her courtroom, I strongly recommend filing a 170.6 peremptory challenge. Judge Santiso’s approach does not inspire confidence in her ability to administer family law fairly and without bias.”