Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage
you to read through our
Terms of Use
before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before
viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal
in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content
creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions,
but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe
in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful
content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating,
and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information
for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this
person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court
order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms
of Use, please complete the following short form.
|
Businiess name:
Russell Cheryll
|
|
Review by:
Guest
|
|
Review content:
Ms. Russell was hired to mediate and then arbitrate a matter with my ex-spouse. The issue at hand was the custody of our dog. The dog had been in my possession for ~ two years since we'd separated and during that time I had been responsible for almost all of the animal's expenses. My ex would have the dog on occasion but acknowledged that he had told me I could have the dog. I came prepared with two years worth of receipts thinking this would be a pretty simple case. The ex wished to share the dog, switching custody every two weeks. Not surprisingly, I wanted to proceed on my own without the regular contact. She ultimately awarded the dog to my ex-husband because she thought he would be willing to let me in the dog's life, whereas I would not. She was right. Immediately after being given the dog my ex-husband asked me to watch the dog for him while he was on holiday. In this case, she was selected by my ex's lawyer. She based her opinion not on fact but on her pity for my ex-husband. She made it clear in her opinion that I had family and a personal network and hobbies and he had nothing and therefore should have the dog. I wouldn't recommend her to anyone. More importantly, she also repeatedly allowed my ex and his lawyer to miss deadlines but would still include their late submissions of materials. Why bother with deadlines in the first place?
|
Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
|
|
Reasons are required.
|
|
or
Cancel
|