You are on page 1of 5



SHAWN MCMAHON No. 2017-00285



To The Honorable R. Stephen Barrett:

Defendant, Mother, proceeding pro se, files this Motion in the interest of her children and the
importance of adherence to the Code of Judicial Conduct.


1. Is the Honorable R. Stephen Barrett in a position to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Suggested Answer: No.


The Court heard the testimony of the parties, Office of Children & Youth caseworkers,

physicians, daycare workers and several others at a protracted custody trial on January 30 and

31, 2018, February 1 and 2, 2018, and March 19 and 20, 2018. His Honor did not make a finding on this.

Following an ordered full day conference in Judge Barrett’s chambers, defendant made every attempt to

reach some form of reasonable agreement in regards to specific aspects of what was presented to

defendant as intended to be part of His Honor’s future order.

On or about July 16, 2018, Mother filed a Petition for Emergency Custody. Mother’s

petition was based on new sexual abuse concerns raised by the children. The Court scheduled the
parties for more days of testimony and ordered them to file pre-trial statements.

On or about September 7, 2018, Mother filed her pre-trial statement.

Father filed his pre-trial statement on or about September 10, 2018.

The Court heard more trial testimony on November 26, 27, 28 and 30. Several parties

testified on behalf of Father that Mother was somehow wielding negative influence over the

children, leading them to have a negative attitude toward Father and that Mother was keeping

cameras in her home. Mother did not have a chance to present rebuttal witnesses to these


On December 10, 2018, the Court held oral argument on the petition of Mother’s attorney

to withdraw as counsel. Mother’s petition was allowed leave to withdraw.

On January 9, 2019, fearing for the emotional and physical well-being, Mother filed an

Emergency Petition (as attached as Exhibit A). This petition is now recognized as detailing multiple

violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

The Court scheduled a conference for the following day, January 10, 2019, notifying Mother by phone,

requiring her to arrive immediately.

At the conference, the Court directed Mother to leave the courtroom to produce a witness list

using the laptop stored in her car. The Court printed the witness list out for the parties and

directed Mother to provide a brief description as to what each witness would testify to within six

days. Mother produced the witness list with brief descriptions of testimony on January 16, 2019.

The witness list comprises people who will give testimony in direct factual contradiction

to the evidence presented by Father.

On January 10, 2019, in addition, his Honor raised his voice and deemed Mother’s petition as “lies”

having not yet heard any testimony regarding the petition.

On or about January 14, 2019 Mother contacted President Judge Thomas M. DelRicci with concerns,

seeking guidance, (as attached as exhibit B).

On or about January 31, 2019 Mother received notification via US Postal services stating the custody

conciliation scheduled for February 5, 2019 had already been addressed in a protracted hearing on

January 23rd and 24th of 2019.

Mother’s January 9, 2019 Modification Petition remains unheard to date with the exception of highly

limited testimony demanded for immediately on January 24th and with no physical evidence yet

permitted to be submitted, none of Mother’s many witnesses permitted to be called, or the multiple

and ongoing concerns raised in the petition heard beyond this highly limited glimpse.

On January 31, 2019 Mother was copied on a request made by Father’s counsel to release Father from

appearing in court on February 4, 2019 listing an “oral argument” as the cause for the court date though

Mother was never previously notified of this date, has still not been aside from opposing counsel’s

reference to it via email, nor does this scheduling appear on his Honor’s posted Court Calendar, leaving

Mother without so much as a time for this, let alone any clear understanding of what his Honor is



A. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires adherence with each of the Rules

B. The Interests of Justice Necessitate That his Honor, R. Stephen Barrett recuse himself from all future
proceedings involved in this case.


In addition to the violations Mother unknowingly detailed in her January 9, 2019 filing as well as her
letter to the President Judge, as she was not at that time aware of the Judicial Code of Conduct, Mother
is able to provide specific examples of his Honor’s violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct to date, as
well as multiple witnesses with first hand testimony to support these claims and concerns.

Eg. Rule 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness

His Honor has not demonstrated an objective position or open mind as required, nor has he made
reasonable accommodations to ensure Mother, who is pro se, have the opportunity to have her matters
heard fairly and impartially.

Rule 2.3 B

The defendant has been repeatedly encouraged to distance self from advocacy groups that support
victims of domestic and sexual abuse/violence, such as Laurel House, as it is believed that Judge Barrett
does not view these affiliations favorably and will respond in a biased fashion. Additionally, Judge
Barrett openly stated that he held a biased opinion against the defendant as a direct result of the
defendant having a medical disability, despite it in no way impacting the defendant’s ability to provide
solid parenting for her children. Judge Barrett imposed orders that significantly impacted defendant’s
socioeconomic status, after drawing attention to the other party’s vast legal team, stemming from his
greater financial resources.

Judge Barrett has repeatedly raised his voice in an intimidating fashion with defendant and defendant’s
witnesses. Judge Barrett openly threatened defendant eg. stating she would, only ever see her children
again in an institutionalized setting, in what defendant has been lead to believe was an attempt to
coerce a settlement and on more than one occasion.

Judge Barrett has repeatedly added vast legal expenses to the defendant and has commented on
defendant’s resulting financial difficulties to include threatening defendant he would impose an order
requiring defendant to pay an excessive amount ($100-$140 per hour for 24 hours a day and seven days
a week—ongoing) for supervision for both parties.

Defendant stated, asking for it to be on the record, that as his Honor was unable to determine which
parent was putting the children at risk, while she did not ever want to leave her children in any way, she
would arrange to stay elsewhere herself and have safe individuals from her church/community stay with
the children enabling them to remain in their home, their school, and their community and without
influence from either of the parties. The defendant stated she would leave her home and her children to
a trusted family, clearly indicating their well-being was her priority and also conveying her desperation
for relief from the Court in seeking safety for them.

Rule 2.4 A

When opposing counsel submitted a picture of defendant at a public event, “All Survivor’s Day,” and
asked defendant about speaking with the press, Judge Barrett immediately questioned the defendant at
length in regards to the media and then spoke at even greater length as to his own merits, requiring
counsel to echo his accolades back for the record.

Defendant has been in communication about publication of the events that have occurred surrounding
her children and also about going to Harrisburg with an advocates group in relation to the death of
Kayden Mancuso and the failures of the Family Court System etc. eg. how the party that speaks up is
labeled as overly emotional, mentally unstable, or accused of “coaching” the child/ren etc. and routinely
given a gag order—thus defendant has been advised to have others ready to speak on behalf of her and
her children to ensure their story is told and her children are brought to safety.
Rule 2.4 B

Judge Barrett failed to recuse himself from the case of the defendant’s colleague and friend, Brett
Galambos, despite having worked closely with Mr. Galambos’ father-in-law for some time. Judge Barrett
displayed a strong aversion for defendant’s connection to Mr. Galambos and insisted her actions were
“inappropriate” and she was “difficult” thereafter.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court allow for the assignment an
impartial Judge to all proceedings with this case and ensure that testimony be heard in an unbiased
manner, seeking the truth in full.

Respectfully submitted,


Jody McMahon, Defendant

189 Anthony Wayne Drive
Pottstown, PA 19464