Alexandra D Quam

This commissioner is adversarial and condescending towards litigants. She seems to use intuition to develop her own idea of what people’s financial situation are and then chastise the litigant for providing documentation or testimony that does not fit her pre-determined ideas.

I'd second what the other poster said. The commissioner failed to adhere to the law and instead allowed my ex to lie, commit perjury, and offer ZERO reason to substantiate any claims to reassess child support. She refused to grant a continuation based on valid facts and the DCSS systemm of appearing online is broken-the phone links don't work and when you input the numbers to get into the courtroom, the audio version repeats the numbers making the passcodes invalid. So instead of allowing a continuation, we were forced to be pressured to come up with a resolution or wait for her to continue to hear us out. She is not impartial, she is biased and does not care about the children's needs. She doesn't respect the law or the rules of the court. She showed zero competence or understanding of the law. She needs to step down as she is setting a precedence of lies and deceit. She is unsettling to deal with and undermines justice and fairness.

This commissioner is gravely unqualified for her position. She consistently oversteps her boundaries by attempting to introduce irrelevant past marital history in a misguided attempt to create discord, despite its lack of relevance to the case. She disregards crucial facts, even when these are supported by the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS), and blatantly ignores presented evidence. During our hearing, my ex-partner was caught in multiple lies—at least 20 instances—and yet the commissioner failed to address any of these falsehoods. Instead, she proceeded to grant undue leniency without requiring any factual documentation, effectively enabling a pattern of deceit in her courtroom. This disregard for the truth undermines the principles of justice and fairness. Her handling of this case displayed a complete lack of competence and legal acumen. Based on her inability to uphold the law and fairly evaluate evidence, it is clear that her position as commissioner is misplaced. Her prior role as a court facilitator may be better suited to her capabilities, as this position demands impartiality and a deep understanding of legal proceedings—qualities she has failed to demonstrate. It is deeply concerning that someone in her position can so blatantly ignore legal statutes and proper procedure. This is a serious issue that demands immediate review and action within the legal system. Such negligence cannot go unaddressed..