Judge Sharon L. Kalemkiarian

Judge Sharon L. Kalemkiarian has served on the San Diego Superior Court since her appointment by Governor Jerry Brown on December 12, 2014, making her a seasoned jurist with over a decade of bench experience. Her judicial identity is most prominently defined by a child-centered philosophy in family law proceedings. A June 2025 Daily Journal profile specifically highlighted her practice of directly hearing from children in custody and family law matters — a distinctive approach that signals she views children not merely as subjects of litigation but as participants whose voices carry genuine weight in her decision-making process. This is a meaningful departure from judges who rely exclusively on attorney representations or expert reports. In the domestic violence arena, a 2024 Law Commentary article references a case before her in which a wife's allegations were not proven, suggesting Judge Kalemkiarian applies evidentiary rigor to DV claims and does not presume credibility based on the nature of the allegation alone. This indicates she expects parties to substantiate serious allegations with concrete, admissible evidence rather than relying on the gravity of the charge to carry the day. Overall, Judge Kalemkiarian appears to be a thoughtful, process-oriented jurist who prioritizes the welfare of children as an independent consideration, demands evidentiary support for serious claims, and brings a deliberate, investigative posture to family law proceedings. Attorneys should expect a judge who is engaged, asks probing questions, and is unlikely to be swayed by emotional advocacy unsupported by facts. Her appointment background and decade-plus tenure suggest institutional stability and consistent application of her judicial values.

Attorneys appearing before Judge Kalemkiarian in custody or family law matters should center their arguments on the best interests of the child with specificity — not as a rhetorical flourish, but with concrete evidence about the child's needs, relationships, developmental stage, and expressed preferences where appropriate. Given her documented practice of directly interviewing children, attorneys should prepare their clients for the possibility that the judge will seek to hear from the child independently. Do not attempt to coach children or suggest to clients that the child's interview is a formality; Judge Kalemkiarian appears to take these interactions seriously and may draw adverse inferences from any perception of parental interference. In domestic violence proceedings, the 2024 case reference is instructive: Judge Kalemkiarian does not appear to grant automatic credibility to DV allegations. Attorneys representing alleged victims should build their cases on corroborating evidence — police reports, medical records, witness testimony, text messages, and documented patterns of behavior — rather than relying on the seriousness of the allegation alone. Conversely, attorneys representing the accused should be prepared to affirmatively challenge the evidentiary basis of allegations with organized, admissible counter-evidence. More broadly, given the limited data available, attorneys should treat early appearances as intelligence-gathering opportunities. Observe how she manages courtroom time, whether she reads briefs in advance, and how she responds to procedural arguments. Presenting well-organized, concise briefs that lead with child welfare implications where applicable is a low-risk, high-reward approach given her known priorities.

• critical

  Prepare Client for Possible Child Interview

  In any custody matter, advise your client that Judge Kalemkiarian may elect to speak directly with the child. Discuss what this means procedurally, ensure the client does not attempt to influence the child's statements, and consider whether to proactively request or oppose such an interview based on your client's position.

• critical

  Compile Corroborating Evidence for DV or Serious Allegations

  If your case involves domestic violence or other serious allegations, build a corroborating evidence file before the hearing: police reports, medical records, communications, witness declarations, and documented incident timelines. Do not rely on the allegation alone to carry weight with this judge.

• important

  Draft Child-Welfare-Specific Argument Section

  In any brief or oral argument touching custody or visitation, include a dedicated section addressing the child's specific needs, relationships, and expressed preferences where known. Avoid generic 'best interests' language — be concrete about this particular child's circumstances.

• important

  Research Recent San Diego Family Law Local Rules

  Given the absence of specific ruling data, review current San Diego Superior Court local rules and any standing orders for Judge Kalemkiarian's department. Procedural compliance is a baseline credibility builder with experienced judges.

• important

  Conduct Early Courtroom Observation

  If time permits before your first substantive hearing, observe a session in Judge Kalemkiarian's courtroom. Note her pace, how she handles oral argument, whether she asks questions from the bench, and how she responds to unprepared counsel. This intelligence is invaluable given the limited public data.

• Nice

  Identify and Brief Any Expert Witness on Child Development

  Given her child-centered approach, expert testimony or declarations from child psychologists, therapists, or custody evaluators may carry particular weight. Identify whether such evidence is available and whether it supports your client's position.

• ›Treat child welfare as a substantive, not rhetorical, concern — Judge Kalemkiarian's documented approach suggests she will probe the sincerity and specificity of child-centered arguments and may push back on generic invocations of 'best interests.'
• ›Be prepared for the judge to ask direct, probing questions about the child's circumstances, preferences, and relationships — have specific, factual answers ready rather than general characterizations.
• ›Present evidence in an organized, admissible format — given her apparent evidentiary rigor in DV proceedings, sloppy or unauthenticated exhibits are likely to undermine your credibility.
• ›Do not speak disparagingly about the opposing party in ways that could be perceived as contrary to the child's interests — judges who prioritize child welfare are often sensitive to parental conflict as a harm to children.
• ›Arrive prepared and on time — a judge with over a decade of bench experience will have established expectations for courtroom efficiency and professionalism.
• ›If your client is a parent, ensure they present as cooperative and child-focused rather than adversarial — Judge Kalemkiarian's philosophy suggests she values parents who demonstrate genuine concern for the child over those who appear primarily focused on winning.