A recent 2025 Florida appellate decision, Bouquet v. Jones, provides a definitive and critical lesson on one of the most emotional and misunderstood aspects of a high-conflict divorce: the process of disqualifying a judge. The case centered on a “contentious child custody dispute” in which one of the parties, Mr. Bouquet, attempted to have two different trial judges removed from his case. He also asked the appellate court to void several of the judges’ prior orders. His reasons for this drastic request are common in heated litigation: he alleged the judges were biased against him because they had made a “series of adverse rulings” and had required in-person testimony instead of allowing remote appearances via Zoom.
The Third District Court of Appeal flatly denied the father’s petition. In its ruling, the court reinforced several iron-clad legal principles. First, and most importantly, the court held that “adverse rulings, without more, do not constitute the requisite bias or prejudice necessary to support disqualification.” Second, the court affirmed that a trial judge has broad and reasonable control over their own courtroom, including the “mode” of how evidence is presented, such as requiring live testimony. Finally, the court dismissed the request to void past orders, reiterating that a writ of prohibition (the legal tool the father used) is “preventative, not corrective,” and cannot be used as a substitute for a standard appeal.
This case is a crucial study for any individual in Tampa navigating the frustrations of a divorce. It clearly defines the high legal standard required to remove a judge and illustrates the common, but fatal, procedural mistakes that self-represented litigants often make.
The Frustration of an “Unfair” Ruling
In any legal dispute, and especially in a Tampa divorce, emotions run high. The final judgment will dictate a person’s financial future and, even more critically, their relationship with their children. When a party walks into a hearing believing their case is strong, and a judge rules against them, the immediate emotional response is often that the system is unfair or that the judge is “against them.”
This feeling can be compounded over the course of litigation. A judge may deny a motion for temporary support, grant the other side’s motion for discovery, and sustain the opposing attorney’s objections during a hearing. This “series of adverse rulings,” as seen in the Bouquet case, can lead a litigant to the firm but mistaken conclusion that the judge is biased and must be “fired” or removed.
This leads to one of the most frequent questions a Tampa divorce lawyer must answer: “The judge hates me. Can we get a new one?” The Bouquet decision provides a clear and resounding answer to that question and explains in detail why the legal standard for disqualification is, by design, incredibly high.
The High Bar for Judicial Disqualification
In Florida, a litigant cannot “fire” a judge. They can, however, file a “Motion to Disqualify.” This is not a simple request; it is a formal, sworn legal motion that must allege a specific, legally sufficient basis for removal.
The legal standard is not whether the judge is actually biased. The test is objective: do the facts alleged in the motion create a “well-founded fear” in a “reasonably prudent person” that they will not receive a fair and impartial hearing? A party’s subjective “feeling” that the judge is unfair is legally irrelevant. The fear must be based on objective, provable facts.
A Tampa divorce lawyer must advise a client that this motion can only be based on a very narrow set of circumstances. Legitimate grounds for disqualification are specific and personal to the judge. They include:
- The judge has a personal, familial, or financial relationship with one of the parties or their attorneys.
- The judge has a direct financial stake in the outcome of the case.
- The judge previously served as an attorney for one of the parties in the same matter.
- The judge has made specific, on-the-record statements that demonstrate “pre-judgment” or “bias” against a party, separate from any legal rulings.
This last point is the most common area of dispute. The Bouquet case is the quintessential example of what does not meet this standard.
The Bouquet Ruling: “Adverse Rulings” Are Not “Bias”
The central holding in the Bouquet v. Jones case is a legal principle that underpins the entire judicial system: “adverse rulings, without more, do not constitute the requisite bias or prejudice necessary to support disqualification.”
A judge’s job is to make decisions. In a divorce trial with hundreds of disputed issues, a judge will make hundreds of rulings. They will sustain one side’s objections and overrule the other’s. They will grant one party’s motion and deny the other’s. They will find one spouse’s financial testimony credible and the other’s not credible. This is not bias; it is the function of the job.
If every litigant who received an adverse ruling was entitled to a new judge, no case would ever conclude. The system would descend into chaos, with parties “judge shopping” until they found one who agreed with them. The Bouquet court’s denial confirms this vital safeguard.
For a ruling to be evidence of bias, it must be accompanied by “something more.” What is that “something more”?
- It would be a statement from the judge that shows they are not basing their ruling on the law, but on a personal animus.
- For example: “I am ruling against you because I find your attitude disrespectful,” or “I am denying your timesharing motion because, in my personal opinion, working fathers should not have 50/50 custody.” These are statements that show pre-judgment.
- A judge simply stating, “I have reviewed the motion and the response, and I am denying your request for temporary alimony,” is not bias. That is a legal ruling.
A common frustration for litigants is when they believe a judge is “wrong on the law.” This is a critical distinction that every Tampa divorce lawyer must explain. A judge can be wrong without being biased.
If a judge misapplies a statute or makes an incorrect calculation on a child support worksheet, they have committed a legal error. The remedy for a legal error is not a Motion to Disqualify. The proper remedy is a direct appeal to a higher court after the final judgment is entered. The Bouquet case itself is an example of the correct process: the father disagreed with the trial court’s orders and sought review from the appellate court (even if he used the wrong legal vehicle to do so).
Filing a Motion to Disqualify a Tampa judge because you believe they are making incorrect legal rulings is not only legally insufficient—it is a critical strategic blunder that can anger the court and waste time and money.
A Judge’s Domain: Control Over the Courtroom (Zoom vs. In-Person)
The father in Bouquet also listed a second, very modern grievance as grounds for his disqualification motion: the judge’s requirement that some participants appear “live in person” rather than “remotely via the Zoom videoconferencing platform.”
The appellate court dismissed this argument out of hand, and its reasoning is a crucial lesson in our post-pandemic legal world. The court cited the Florida evidence code, which gives a judge broad and “reasonable control over the mode and order of the interrogation of witnesses and the presentation of evidence.”
A litigant in a Tampa divorce does not have an inherent “right” to appear by Zoom for a trial or evidentiary hearing. A judge’s decision to require an in-person appearance is a matter of “case management,” not a sign of bias. There are many valid, strategic, and legally sound reasons why a judge would demand that parties and witnesses appear live:
- Assessing Credibility: This is the most important reason. A judge’s primary job is often to determine who is telling the truth. A judge cannot do this effectively by watching a small, pixelated video feed. They need to see the witness’s full body language, their demeanor, their eye contact, and their nervous tics. These are the “indicia of credibility” that are lost over a video call.
- Preventing Undue Influence: When a witness testifies remotely, the court has no control over their environment. Is another person in the room feeding them answers? Are they being texted by their lawyer? Are they reading from a prepared script off-screen? A Tampa divorce lawyer knows that the only way to ensure the integrity of testimony is to have the witness in the courtroom, on the stand, under oath.
- Maintaining Decorum: A live, in-person hearing underscores the seriousness and gravity of the judicial proceeding.
The Bouquet ruling confirms that a judge in Hillsborough County is well within their rights to deny a request for a Zoom hearing. A party’s convenience does not override the court’s fundamental duty to “facilitate… the discovery of the truth.”
The Wrong Tool for the Job: A Prohibition is Not a Time Machine
The final, and perhaps most telling, error in the Bouquet case was a procedural one. The father, who was representing himself (“in proper person”), used a rare and powerful legal tool called a “Writ of Prohibition.” He also tried to use this writ to void several previously rendered orders.
The appellate court rejected this, explaining that a writ of prohibition is “preventative, not corrective,” and “may not be used as a substitute for appeal.”
This is a critical legal distinction that highlights the danger of self-representation in complex litigation.
- A Writ of Prohibition (A “Stop” Button): This is an “extraordinary writ,” a legal “bazooka.” It is not a normal appeal. A party files it to ask an appellate court to prevent a trial judge from doing something they have no legal jurisdiction or power to do. For example, “Your Honor, you are about to start a new trial, but this case was already finalized and appealed. You have no jurisdiction. Stop.”
- A Direct Appeal (A “Rewind” Button): This is the normal, “corrective” tool. After a final judgment is entered, a Tampa divorce lawyer files an appeal to argue that the trial judge made a mistake in a prior ruling. The appeal asks the higher court to “rewind” the case and correct the error.
The father in Bouquet tried to use the “stop” button as a “rewind” button. He was, in effect, trying to use a specialized, “preventative” writ as a “time machine” to undo the past. This is procedurally improper and was doomed to fail. This error, which a first-year law student would be trained to avoid, demonstrates the profound procedural disadvantage of a pro se litigant.
Conclusion: Build a Better Case, Don’t Attack the Judge
The Bouquet v. Jones decision is a definitive lesson from the Florida courts. The feeling that a judge is “against you” is a common, and often understandable, part of a high-conflict divorce. However, the law is clear that your remedy is not to attack the judge. Adverse rulings are a part of the process, not proof of a conspiracy.
This case teaches two vital lessons for any divorce in Tampa.
- The Best Strategy is a Better Case: Instead of focusing on the judge, a litigant’s energy and resources are better spent on building a stronger case. This means providing your Tampa divorce lawyer with better, more organized financial documentation, securing a more credible expert witness, and focusing on clear, evidence-based arguments.
- The Remedy for Error is Appeal: If a judge makes a true legal error—misapplies a statute, makes an incorrect mathematical calculation, or misinterprets an agreement—the remedy is not to file for disqualification. The remedy is to have your Tampa divorce lawyer “preserve the record” with a proper objection and, if necessary, file a direct appeal after the final judgment.
The complexities of family law, from the rules of evidence to the nuances of appellate writs, are vast. The Bouquet case is a powerful, and costly, example of what happens when a litigant tries to navigate this minefield without a professional guide.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are facing a contentious divorce, you need an advocate who understands these complex rules. A Tampa divorce lawyer can provide a realistic, objective assessment of your case, build the strongest argument based on the law, and ensure that every one of your procedural and constitutional rights is protected. Contact our office for a consultation to discuss your case.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is a Motion to Disqualify a judge in Florida? It is a formal, sworn motion asking a judge to remove themselves from a case. To be legally sufficient, it must allege specific facts (not just feelings or opinions) that would cause a “reasonably prudent person” to have a “well-founded fear” of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.
Can I disqualify a judge just because they always rule against me? No. As the Bouquet v. Jones case confirms, a “series of adverse rulings, without more, do not constitute the requisite bias or prejudice” for disqualification. A judge being wrong on the law is a matter for an appeal, not disqualification.
Can I demand to appear by Zoom for my Tampa divorce trial? No. A judge has broad discretion to “control the mode” of testimony. The Bouquet case affirmed that a judge’s order requiring an in-person appearance is a valid exercise of their authority to assess witness credibility and control the courtroom.
What is a “Writ of Prohibition”? It is an “extraordinary” (rare) legal action used to prevent a trial court from acting in a matter where it has no legal jurisdiction or authority. It is “preventative, not corrective,” and cannot be used as a “substitute for appeal” to undo past rulings.
What is the difference between “bias” and “legal error”? “Bias” is a personal, improper prejudice for or against a party (e.g., “I never believe working mothers”). A “legal error” is an impersonal, incorrect application of the law or rules (e.g., “The judge used the wrong income number in the child support worksheet”). The remedy for bias is disqualification; the remedy for error is an appeal.
The McKinney Law Group: Experienced Tampa Attorneys for Every Stage of Divorce
From filing to final judgment, we provide Tampa clients with hands-on legal support every step of the way. Our goal is to protect your interests and help you transition smoothly into the next chapter.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to arrange your consultation.