R.H., THE FATHER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A trial judge must be disqualified from presiding over termination of parental rights proceedings when she has prejudged the credibility of a key expert witness based on extrajudicial knowledge, as this creates a reasonable fear of unfairness.
[1] A trial judge must disqualify herself when her prejudgment of a key expert witness's credibility based on extrajudicial knowledge creates in a reasonably prudent person a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“neutrality and the appearance of neutrality are equally critical in maintaining the integrity of our judicial process”
The court emphasized that despite the informality of dependency proceedings, judicial neutrality must be maintained.
During a permanency hearing in a termination of parental rights case, the trial judge drew on extrajudicial knowledge to prejudge the credibility of a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair And Impartial Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed June 16, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-0784 Lower Tribunal No. 15-16110
________________
R.H., the Father,
Petitioner,
vs.
Department of Children and Families, et al., Respondents.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition. Cooke Law, P.A., and Stewart M. Cooke, for petitioner. Laura J. Lee, and Thomasina F. Moore (Tallahassee), for Guardian ad Litem Program; Karla Perkins, for the Department of Children and Families, for respondents. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. MILLER, J. Petitioner, R.H., the father, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the assigned trial judge from further presiding over his termination of parental rights proceedings. In the disqualification motion filed below, the father alleged that at the permanency hearing, drawing on extrajudicial knowledge, the trial court prejudged the credibility of an expert witness central to his future trial. While we are cognizant of the “flexibility and informality characteristic of dependency proceedings,” and the fact that dependency judges routinely encounter the same experts, neutrality and the appearance of neutrality are equally critical in maintaining the integrity of our judicial process. M.W. v. Davis, 756 So. 2d 90, 108 (Fla. 2000). It is essential that the factors impacting the assessment of the credibility of an expert be derived solely from the record of the proceedings. Hence, the allegations, as penned, were sufficient to “create in a reasonably prudent person a wellfounded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we grant the petition, but, confident that the trial judge will disqualify herself from the proceedings, withhold formal issuance of the writ. Petition granted; writ withheld.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- M.W. v. Arlonia Davis, 756 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 2000)
- Valdes-Fauli v. Gonzalo F. Valdes-Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)