Kandy Kay Sullivan

I am deeply concerned about the performance of Kandy Sullivan, who was appointed as Minor’s Counsel in my child’s case in Los Angeles Superior Court. Ms. Sullivan’s conduct has raised serious questions about her commitment to fulfilling her duties effectively and professionally. 1. Failure to ...Acknowledge or Respond to Urgent Communications Since her appointment, Ms. Sullivan has routinely ignored multiple emails and requests for information regarding my child’s well-being. This lack of basic responsiveness has created unnecessary obstacles in ensuring my child’s welfare, especially given the court-ordered visitation restrictions in place. Minor’s Counsel should advocate for the child’s best interests and communicate with both parents, but Ms. Sullivan’s disregard for my inquiries has eroded my confidence in her ability to fulfill her role. 2. Charging Fees Without Providing Substantive Engagement Ms. Sullivan has billed fees simply for opening emails, with little to no engagement on the concerns raised. These charges have accumulated to over $3,453, yet primarily reflect minimal responses without any substantial action. On numerous occasions, billing records show charges for calls lasting only a few seconds, with no meaningful discussion. Additionally, her office has gone so far as to threaten police involvement, labeling my attempts to seek information as “harassment”—an unfounded and unprofessional accusation. 3. Lack of Advocacy and Failure to Act in the Child’s Best Interests Despite being informed of significant concerns impacting my child, Ms. Sullivan has failed to take any apparent action to address or investigate these matters. Her ongoing inaction raises ethical concerns regarding her commitment to the role of Minor’s Counsel, which is to ensure a safe, stable environment for the child. 4. Consistent Failure to Maintain Professional Communication Standards There is a consistent pattern of unacknowledged and unaddressed communications, which falls below California’s Rules of Professional Conduct that require timely, responsible communication. This lack of responsiveness has added confusion and hindered my ability to support my child effectively. 5. Pattern of Favoring Fathers Over Mothers In my research, I discovered multiple complaints from other mothers on platforms like Avvo.com and Yelp, who felt Ms. Sullivan neglected to advocate fairly for their children. There is a troubling pattern suggesting Ms. Sullivan may favor fathers, raising questions about her impartiality and commitment to representing children’s best interests. 6. Financial Control by the Opposing Party In this case, Ms. Sullivan’s fees are covered solely by the child’s father, which appears to have created a financial influence over her actions. This dynamic raises serious concerns about her neutrality and her ability to advocate independently when the party paying her fees may be contributing to my child’s distress. Conclusion Overall, Ms. Sullivan’s consistent lack of responsiveness, engagement, and advocacy has compromised my child’s well-being and interfered with my ability to protect my child’s emotional health. I hope that sharing this review will bring awareness to the importance of accountability for professionals tasked with advocating for children’s welfare.

This is probably the most piss poor lawyer I have EVER met in my life. She was assigned to my child custody case where my abusive ex was represented and I was not because I was unable to afford a lawyer. This miserable train wreck worked WITH my abusive sociopath ex's scum bag lawyer to put me in a c...ompletely uneven and unfair custody arrangement where I essentially never get to see my child. She always showed up late to court, she was always unprepared, refused to listen or communicate with me, was very rude and talked down to me when I did talk to her.

Kandy Sullivan became minor's counsel for my granddaughter in a child custody case in November 2012. She was supposed to work for the best interest of the child. Instead, she became a pal of the child's father who has been shown to be a probable abuser of the child. She dismissed each piece of ev...idence against the father as it was presented to her. (She should have at least considered it—for the sake of the child's well-being.) Thus, Kandy became biased from the outset. Kandy met the child and her father once—in November 2012—and the child and her mother once—also in November 2012. She has never met the child alone, and she has never met the child under any condition since November 2012. Kandy agreed to be paid by the County of Los Angeles, then sent bills to the involved parties. Kandy hired a therapist to assess whether the child had indeed been abused, then ordered the therapist to perform therapy with the goal of bringing the child closer to her father. (This is not the goal of therapy!)