Natalie Lough

I have serious concerns about Judge Lough’s conduct on the bench. In my experience and observation, she does not appear to be impartial. Her background working with the DA’s office seems to influence how she approaches cases, and at times it feels like conclusions are formed before all the evidence is fully considered.

I have consulted with numerous attorneys and these are the opinions I have gotten about this judge: insecure, head strong, unkind to protective mothers. She believes any outlandish and unfounded claim made by the opposing council, especially those without any evidence. Judge Lough is quick to anger, quick to form an opinion, especially if it is against a mother. She has not cared one bit about the best interest of my child and has sided with our abuser.

This judge has displayed and executed with impunity based on her mood or temperament of the case before her…total disregard for fair and impartial judgement.

Judge Natalie Lough has demonstrated a troubling pattern of bias, unprofessional conduct, and disregard for the law. In my case, she failed to act in the best interest of the child, ignored evidence of abuse, and enabled ongoing financial and emotional coercion by rewarding manipulative litigation tactics. She allowed one party to misuse the court system to evade responsibility and reverse a signed and stipulated financial agreement — a decision that directly undermined fairness and accountability.

This has been the worse judge my case has had. She did not want to listen to anything, was much more worried about lunch break. Not sure if because the other party needed an interpreter that bothered her? But she allowed everyone else to speak, but when it came to my case it was very different. Def felt biased. If you have a bad experience with her (not just bad but UNFAIR, please report to judicial because they need more reports to finally do something about it)

Judge Lough did not consistently follow the law, raises issues sua sponte, and gives the impression she has decided the case before litigants even enter the courtroom. In my case, she confused the facts, imposed findings not in the record, and even admitted more than once that she had mistaken my case for another. It was clear from her comments that she hadn’t read my filings, and when pressed, she tried to rationalize her decision by relying on facts that simply weren’t there. She cited an unpublished case that turned out to have no relevance when I reviewed it later. Overall, the experience left me with serious concerns about whether she approaches cases with the impartiality and preparation expected of a judge.