Your point is on. However, I would imagine the PO and the client did not hear much once she said “No” and would not until they read the transcripts of the hearing to catch what you mention. Additionally, she is making the point to him and others since he was given an additional six months for non-homework internet access, e.g. fish tank, etc, an early release from the additional six month given will not be granted even if the PO says you earned it.
Why is the question on “Her reasoning, according to Zach’s father, Lester Anderson, was that she never allows anyone in Zach’s situation early release.”. What are her reasons behind her reasoning? She doesn’t have to explain herself, as many judges don’t, but it would have been helpful if she did because otherwise it just reeks of supremacy of her judgeship in an authoritarian manner in our society which is authoritarian enough. No one will learn or understand other than the “No” if reasoning is not shared for all, including those in this situation.