Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
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 well-
founded 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.
2
R.H., THE FATHER v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Combined Opinion