How have courts dealt with allegations of bias and prejudice?

This ad hominem attack on the court is ultimately nothing more than a challenge to the court's credibility determinations. While we must address the issue of judicial bias, it merits little discussion here.¹² First, it well settled that adverse or erroneous rulings, especially those subject to review, do not establish a charge of judicial bias. (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1112, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151.) When the trial court sits as a trier of fact, it is called upon to determine if a witness is to be believed or notthat is the nature of factfinding. (In re Marriage of Greenberg (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1099.) "When making a ruling, a judge interprets the evidence, weighs credibility, and makes findings. In doing so, the judge necessarily makes and expresses determinations in favor of and against parties. How could it be otherwise? We will not hold that every statement a judge makes to explain his or her reasons for ruling against a party constitutes evidence of judicial bias. [] '[W]hen the state of mind of the trial judge appears to be adverse to one of the parties but is based upon actual observance of the witnesses and the evidence given during the trial of an action, it does not amount to that prejudice against a litigant which disqualifies him in the trial of the action. It is his duty to consider and pass upon the evidence produced before him, and when the evidence is in conflict, to resolve that conflict in favor of the party whose evidence outweighs that of the opposing party. The opinion thus formed, being the result of a judicial hearing, does not amount to [improper] bias and prejudice . . . .' " (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1219-1220.)

Page 16