IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. _______________
SERBRENA ALSTON,
Petitioner,
v.
DENVAL A. GREEN,
Respondent.
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
SERBRENA ALSTON
6737 DE SOTO AVE APT 125
CANOGA PARK, CA 91303 and
green.s@aol.com
Petitioner, pro se
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
INTRODUCTION 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2
NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS 2
ARGUMENT 3
I. The Court erred, as a matter of law, in holding that the children must continue their
education at the specified school 3
II. Home schooling is in the best interest of the children 4
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Martinez v. Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37, 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990) 3
McFadden v. Fourth District Court of Appeal, 682 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1996) 2
Vasquez v. Vasquez, 443 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) 4
Vasquez v. Vasquez, 443 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 851 (Fla.
1984) 4
Wilson v. Wilson, 559 So.2d 698, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 4
Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(b)2.a 3
Fla. Stat. §61.13(3) 4
Rules
Fla. R. App. 9.030(b)(3) 2
Constitutional Provisions
Florida Constitution, Article V, § 3(b)(8) 2
4
INTRODUCTION
Defendant submits the following Brief in Support of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus to
compel this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. There are significant legal grounds,
extraordinary facts, and circumstances which justify this court to quash the indictments charged
against Defendant. This motion is on the grounds that since the Defendant took his plea in 2017,
the date that the summons and indictment were served upon him, Defendant’s Right to a Speedy
Trial and Timely Resolution of his Criminal Case have been violated on the part of the State of
Georgia’s failure to timely prosecute the Defendant.
This Writ is further brought on the ground that the indictments charged against Defendant
are fatally defective, and thus void, because they fail to allege facts that constitute the charged
crimes or any other crimes, including lesser included offenses of the charged crimes. Because of
this, the elements of simple battery are missing from the indictment of simple battery, and
Defendant cannot be properly prosecuted by the State. Likewise, the elements of family violence
battery are missing from the indictment of family violence battery, and Defendant cannot be
properly prosecuted by the State. Furthermore, the State has a burden under the Georgia Rules of
Professional Conduct and the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to only pursue criminal
proceedings where the charge is supported by probable cause. Because the State is unable to even
prove the necessary elements for simple battery under O.C.G.A. §16-5-2 and family violence
battery under O.C.G.A. §16-5-23.1, the State cannot prosecute Defendant because doing so would
be a violation of Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8 and Model Rules of Professional
Conduct Rule 3.8.
Furthermore, Defendant brings forth this Writ on the failure of the State to timely prosecute
Defendant for the charges pressed against him on the basis that his civil liberties under the United
States Constitution and Georgia Constitution have been infringed.
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to issue a Writ of mandamus pursuant to Florida Constitution,
Article V, § 3(b)(8) and Fla. R. App. 9.030(b)(3). See also McFadden v. Fourth District Court of
Appeal, 682 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1996).
NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT
The nature of relief sought by this Petition is a Writ of Mandamus compelling the Fourth
District Court of Appeal to grant Petitioner
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Petitioner and the Respondent were married, and had three children out of the marriage
namely, Najeera lmani Green DOB 12/14/2009; Naima Lee Green DOB 8/6/2014; and Denval
Green III DOB 4/21/2016. In the course of the marriage, the Petitioner was subjected to violence
from the Respondent, which led to the parties divorcing on or about February 5, 2021. Petitioner
currently has an injunction against the Respondent for domestic violence.
After the divorce, Petitioner relocated to California on April 13, 2021. It was not until
March 2022 that she returned to Florida. Consequently, on or about March 25, 2022, the Petitioner
filed a Motion for Clarification, where she requested the court for the transfer the children to
schools closer to where she lives. On March 28, 2022, the Court issued an order denying the
Petitioner leave to transfer the children as she requested. However, the Judge stated that “the
decision about the school is a shared parenting decision for the 2022-2023 school year”
(emphasis added).
On or about May 24, 2022, the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for
Orange County issued an “order on outstanding pleadings and child support issues; order on
motion to reinstate filed 5/16/2022; and order on child support; and directions to the clerk”. In the
said order, the Court stated inter alia, that: after Petitioner’s Spring Break timesharing, she kept the
6
Children out of school with absolutely no good reason, and that the Court is very concerned and
will not tolerate the Children being kept out of school.
The court further stated that the Children should not miss school and that they should be
enrolled in the same schools next year unless there is a written agreement or court order. The Court
also emphasized that Petitioner may not move their schools, although her address may be used for
the schools that does not include changing school.
Plaintiff filed an appeal of the Court’s order with the instant Court. The ground for the
appeal was that the judge held that the parties’ three children must remain in the schools that they
are enrolled in, which are not near where the Petitioner lives. The parties had a pre-marital contact
where the Respondent stated that if they had children, they would be home schooled. It is
noteworthy that Petitioner homeschooled the children up until the divorce.
On or about July 15, 2022, this Court issued an Order directing the Petitioner to file the
instant Amended Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.
ARGUMENT
I. The Court erred, as a matter of law, in holding that the children must continue their
education at the specified school
Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(b)2.a, provides that:
[i]n ordering shared parental responsibility, the court may consider the expressed
desires of the parents and may grant to one party the ultimate responsibility over
specific aspects of the child’s welfare or may divide those responsibilities
between the parties based on the best interest of the child. Areas of responsibility
may include primary residence, education, medical and dental care, and any other
responsibilities which the court finds unique to a particular family.
The foregoing statutory language contemplates that parents, not the courts, have the
responsibility of determining where their children will attend school. See also Martinez v.
Martinez, 573 So. 2d 37, 41 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).
Petitioner asserts that the lower court erred as a matter of law in requiring the Respondent
7
to continue the children’s education at the specified schools. See Fla. Stat. § 61.13(2)(b)2.a; Wilson
v. Wilson, 559 So.2d 698, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
In the instant action, the parties had already agreed that the children would be
homeschooled. Notably, the parties had a pre-marital contact where the Respondent stated that if
they had children, they would be home schooled. Besides, 0n March 28, 2022, the Court issued an
order denying the Petitioner leave to transfer the children as she requested. However, the Judge
stated that “the decision about the school is a shared parenting decision for the 2022-2023
school year” (emphasis added).
It is noteworthy that Petitioner homeschooled the children up until the divorce. It is
Respondent who twisted everything to make it look like, Petitioner is against traditional learning
when her family is full of educators and Petitioner supports public school teaching.
The court’s holding that the children continue their schools near the abusive Respondent are
erroneous since parents, not the courts, have the responsibility of determining where their children
will attend school. And that the parties had already agreed earlier as to the education of the
children.
II. Home schooling is in the best interest of the children
In situations where the parents are unable to agree on the education of their children, the
court is required to designate, based on the best interests of the children, one parent to have the
ultimate responsibility for making decisions regarding that specific aspect of the children’s welfare.
See, for example, Vasquez v. Vasquez, 443 So.2d 313, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451
So.2d 851 (Fla. 1984).
According to Fla. Stat. §61.13(3), the best interests of the child shall be made by evaluating
all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the particular minor child and the
circumstances of that family, including, but not limited to:
8
(d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and
the desirability of maintaining continuity.
(e) The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to
the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling to
effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or
against relocation of either parent with a child.
(j) The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be
informed of the circumstances of the minor child…
(k) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a
consistent routine for the child, such as discipline, and daily schedules for
homework, meals, and bedtime.
(p) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to participate and be
involved in the child’s school and extracurricular activities.
(s) The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated
capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child’s developmental needs.
In the instant action, the judge held that if the children are tardy or absent from school, the
Judge will place them with Respondent’s, because he lives closer to the schools. He enrolled the
children into those schools when he was doing make-up parenting time. Petitioner avers that the
Court’s decision is against the best interests of the children.
First, The Respondent works 70 to 80 hours a week. Therefore, his hired help takes care of
the children in his stead. Next, the Petitioner had the children tested as soon as school finished in
May of this year by Sylvan learning center. The test results showed the children testing below their
grade level. Further, all the three children were bullied this past school year. The youngest had his
teeth knocked out by a bully at school. Interestingly, the Respondent never even called the schools
or scheduled a parent teacher conference on those issues. Further, the oldest daughter was bullied
so bad that she developed trichollomania and talked about suicide.
Petitioner asserts that she has been the three children’s primary caregiver since birth. The
Respondent works so much (as he does now) that he did not participate in rendering the children.
He works from 3 am to 9 pm 6 days a week. He does not even know the children’s favorite colors
9
or foods.
It is therefore in the children’s best interests to be relocated from the schools where they are
now, and be brought near the Petitioner.
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Court should issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Trial Court to vacate its
decision that directed the children to continue schooling at their current schools.
Petitioner also prays that since the three children are free to enroll, she can un-enroll them
from their current schools that are zoned far from the Petitioner, and be brought near her, where
they will live with her the custodial parent. Petitioner also prays this Honorable Court to avoid
determining where the children will attend school since, by law, such matters are left to the parents.
Lastly, Petitioner prays for any further relief this Court may deem just.
Respectively submitted this day of __________ 2022:
____________________________
SERBRENA ALSTON
6737 DE SOTO AVE APT 125
CANOGA PARK, CA 91303 and
green.s@aol.com
Petitioner, pro se
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, SERBRENA ALSTON, do hereby affirm that I placed a copy of the foregoing
document in the United States Postal Service for mailing to the entity named below on this
day of , 2022.
[ENTER RESPONDENT’S ADDRESS]
____________________________
SERBRENA ALSTON
6737 DE SOTO AVE APT 125
CANOGA PARK, CA 91303 and
green.s@aol.com
Petitioner, pro se
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )