Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.

Mr. Landry served as a guardian ad-litem in my child custody case in 2010. He seemed reasonable at first. I expected a certain bias against me because I am the father. However Mr. Landry specifically ignored evidence that my children’s mother was creating parental alienation syndrome intentionally with all four of my kids. He ignored evidence that she was denying me court ordered visitations and refused to present that evidence to the judge in the case even though it was well documented. In the end he recommended the parent who admitted to physically abusing the children while on the stand in the courtroom. He discounted all the physical evidence that it was not in the best interest for the children to grant custody to the abusive parent. Evidence of drug and alcohol abuse was also presented, both by the mother and by one of the children while in her custody. He recommended they be placed with the parent who had a significantly smaller home in a less than desirable neighborhood that was not in the children's school districts and who was away at work a majority of the time over the parent who was still in the original larger home and worked from home and was available 24/7 for the children. I cannot in good faith recommend him as a fair or unbiased attorney. Thank goodness the female judge did not go with his full recommendation and I still have a generous visitation order. Child custody can be a messy business, but it should be a fair one base on facts and what is in the best interest of the children and not based on emotions. Mr. Landry demonstrated that he was unable to operate in that capacity in my experience. Shortly after placing them with their mother, the mother totaled her car while texting and then kicked out one of our children once they were ineligible for child support due to age. This child also failed out of school under her watch and was taken in by me after she changed the locks to keep the child out. Mr. Landry is not a very astute judge of character and should be avoided. Maybe my case was an exception but I doubt it. If you are looking for an attorney who can sway a judge, he would be a bad choice.

I had an experience similar to Curt's with Scott Landry acting as Guardian Ad Litem. While initially appearing even handed, Scott quickly developed a bias through the proceedings. I expected this to some degree because I am the father, but I had custody of the children for four years, in which they thrived and there were no significant issues. He totally ignored admissions of physical abuse by the mother, abandonment of the children on four separate occassions, locking my daughter out of the house, involvement with pornography, and her absence from all involvement in the school, or extracurricular activities of the children. Scott cleverly avoided having the therapists, that interviewed the children, appear in court. He then went on to mis-represent to the court their findings in order to support his presentations to the court. Several other presentations made by Scott to the court were clearly false, without any basis in fact. Scott's presentation of a visitation schedule that supposedly "served the interests of the children" , have the children spending 15 to 20 hours in daycare. Time that was formerly spent with their parents. I agree with Curt that Custody and Visitation cases are difficult for everyone involved. Given this, all parties should be entitled to an unbiased process. I would be very wary of Scott Landry. My experience with him found that he failed to exercise due diligence to properly inform himself with the issues, jumped to hasty conclusions in spite of contradictory evidence, and, sadly he doesn't seem to be able to admit he erred. He also closed his eyes to much evidence of harm done to the children, never making mention or reporting these events to the court. Since Scott's enlightened recommendations, my children's performance is school has declined, they are no longer involved in any extracurricular activities, one child has been suspended from school, and one child has run away from his mother's home. Scott's view of these events is that the children are resisting their mother's good parenting efforts. The children's view is that they are trying to get away from an environment where there is constant yelling and screaming. During their interviews with Scott, the children expressed a desire to spend equal time with each parent. Scott is out of touch with today's children and the relationships they have with their parents.