Laura Ann Valles

I appeared before this hearing officer while self-represented in a custody matter involving child-safety concerns. My experience raised serious concerns about neutrality, procedural fairness, and the handling of abuse-related issues in family court. I was not permitted to read an opening statement... or reference evidence I had submitted in advance. Instead, I was directed to focus narrowly on a most recent issue, despite a broader history being directly relevant to safety. When I attempted to explain that earlier incidents were more serious, my credibility was questioned rather than the evidence considered, based on the assertion that I had not verbally led with those incidents. During the hearing, statements were made by the officer that insisted that harassment from my child's father is to be expected, that excessive alcohol use during parenting time was viewed as a personal choice rather than a safety consideration, and that I was expected to accommodate and rely on the other parent despite raising abuse-related concerns. This framing felt inconsistent with a child-centered approach. In my opinion, the outcome of that hearing did not adequately address the safety concerns raised. Following that proceeding, further issues arose that required police involvement and further court intervention. A subsequent hearing before a different officer resulted in a markedly different outcome, with greater recognition of the risks and the need for protective measures. This contrast reinforced my concern that the initial hearing failed to meaningfully assess or mitigate risk. Family court decisions carry significant consequences for children. In my view, safety concerns deserve careful, evidence-based consideration, particularly when abuse or substance-related risk is raised. That standard was not reflected in my experience here. As an unrepresented parent, I did not feel afforded a fair opportunity to be heard.