IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIFTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. _______________

SERBRENA ALSTON,
Petitioner,

v.

DENVAL A. GREEN,
Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

SERBRENA ALSTON
P.O. Box 691603
Orlando, FL 32869
Petitioner, pro se

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii
INTRODUCTION 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 1
NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS 2
ARGUMENT 6
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of
the law, which departure caused irreparable injury to
Petitioner 6
a) Civil Contempt 6
b) Emergency Custody 8
c) Disqualification of the Trial Court Judge 11
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF 14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 17

3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Akridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) 4
Boykin v. Boykin, 843 So.2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). 5
Chastine v. Broome, 629 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) 7
Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1960) 4
Gerber v. Gerber, 468 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) 5
J.F. v. State, 718 So.2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) 7
Johnson v. State, 769 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2000). 7
Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1085 7
Management Corporation of America, Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So.2d 1169
(Fla. 3rd DCA 1981) 7
Merrill Lynch Trust Co. v. Alzheimer’s Lifeliners Ass’n 4
R.O. v. State, 46 So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) 7
Williams v. State, 160 So. 3d 541, 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) 7
Statutes
Fla. Stat. §61.13(3) 8
Florida Statute § 61.534 5
Rules
Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) 1

4

Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(3) 1
Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c) 1
Rule 2.330, Fla. R. Jud. Admin 6
Constitutional Provisions
Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const 1

5

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner petitions this Court under Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.100(c) for a writ of certiorari to review three Orders entered by
the Circuit Court of the Ninth judicial circuit, in and for Orange County,
Florida.
The first order issued on or about June 6, 2022, denied Petitioner’s
Emergency Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement. The second order issued
on or about August 12, 2022, denied Petitioner’s request for Emergency
Custody. Lastly, the third order issued on or about August 23, 2022 denying
the Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify the Judge.
There are significant legal grounds, extraordinary facts, and
circumstances which justify this court to compel the Trial Court to vacate its
decisions in the said three orders.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court is authorized to issue writs of certiorari. Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla.
Const.; see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(3). The order to be reviewed was
rendered on June 26, 2020, when it was filed with the clerk of the Public
Employees Relations Commission. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h). This petition is
timely because it was “filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be
reviewed.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c).

NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT

6

The nature of relief sought by this Petition is a Writ of Certiorari
compelling the Fifth 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 Anthony Green II 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”
On or about June 3, 2022, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion for
Civil Contempt/Enforcement. In the said motion, the Petitioner averred that
the Respondent failed to inter alia, pay monthly child support of $338.72; and

7
monthly spousal support of $300.
On or about June 6, 2022, the Court denied Petitioner’s Emergency
Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement.
On or about August 12, 2022, Petitioner filed a Motion for Emergency
Custody. Petitioner raised several grounds in support of the motion. First, the
Respondent, without good cause and without Petitioner’s knowledge and/or
consent, took Petitioner’s name off the list to drop off/pick up the children
to/from school. Petitioner cannot therefore keep up the children’s
appointments at the doctor, dentist, and pediatrician. For instance, on May 2,
2022, the Parties’ daughter, Najeera Green, hurt her ankle during PE, and
she asked for Petitioner. When Petitioner arrived, the school nurse informed
her that she (Petitioner), was not listed in the school records. This happened
even when the Petitioner submitted a court order to the Respondent, which
enabled her to drop off and pick up Najeera. Clearly, the Respondent is
trying to cut Petitioner out of the children’s lives.
Next, the Respondent is an admitted domestic and/or child violence
abuser and rapist. It is for this reason that he was ordered to complete
Domestic Batterers’ Class. Further, he has had two injunctions granted
against him (one for the parties’ daughter for child abuse and the other from
Petitioner for domestic violence abuse).
The Respondent also cheated on Petitioner with several women

8

including the one that he is currently living with, who babysits the parties’
three children.
The Respondent was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.
There is therefore a threat that he would inflict all kind if unnecessary pain
upon the parties’ children to satisfy his narcissistic tendencies.
The Respondent uses drugs and is an alcoholic. There is therefore a
threat that he might harm the children while he is under influence; that he is
unable to carter for the children’s well-being; and that he serves a bad
example to them.
Together with his lawyer, the Respondent has engaged in fraudulent
conduct. For instance, his lawyer used two different signatures on the
Mediation settlement Agreement, which gave him everything including the
house and all three cars which he sold. The signatures were fraudulent.
The Respondent never has time for the children. He works 60 to 70
hours a week this leaving the three children to be “raised” and babysat by his
mistress who happens to work for the Department of Children and Families.
The Respondent has engaged in frivolous conduct, and abuse of the
judicial process. For instance, he called in a fake tip to the child abuse hotline
accusing Petitioner of giving the Parties’ 5 year old (at the time) son, meth.
He also uses the judicial process to frustrate and intimidate the Petitioner. As
a result of his conduct, there are three appeals all filed in the lower tribunal,

9

while two appeals at the Florida Supreme Court. It also appears he colluded
with the Court to deny the Petitioner her parental rights. For instance, the
presiding Judge, Diane Tennis, stated that she dislikes pro se litigants. It is
for this reason that many of Petitioner’s filings get dismissed and/or rejected.
The Respondent, who is an immigrant, also admitted using the
Petitioner for immigration motives to get his sick father to the United States
for medical care.
On or about August 12, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying
Petitioner’s request for Emergency Custody.
Consequently, the Petitioner filed a Motion to Disqualify the Judge,
based on the Trial Judge’s bias. The Court issued an Order on August 23,
2022 denying the Petitioner’s Motion.
ARGUMENT

The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the
law, which departure caused irreparable injury to Petitioner
a) Civil Contempt
Civil contempt consists of failing to do something that a court or judge
in a civil case has ordered for the benefit of the opposing party in the case.
Ducksworth v. Boyer, 125 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1960). “The primary purpose of a
civil contempt proceeding is to compel compliance with a court order, not to
punish.” Akridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346, 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) . “An

10

essential finding to support contempt is the party’s intent to violate the court
order at issue.” Merrill Lynch Trust Co. v. Alzheimer’s Lifeliners Ass’n, 832
So. 2d 948, 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
In Petitioner’s June 3, 2022 Emergency Motion for Civil
Contempt/Enforcement, the Petitioner averred that the Respondent failed to
inter alia, pay monthly child support of $338.72; and monthly spousal support
of $300. Petitioner met the threshold to prove that the Respondent should be
found liable for civil contempt. Specifically, the Respondent failed to follow
the previous Court Order that directed him to pay monthly child and spousal
support, which Respondent failed to do.
Petitioner therefore avers that the Trial Court failed to apply the
essential requirements of the law in denying Petitioner’s Emergency Motion
for Civil Contempt.
As a result of the Court’s failure to apply the law on Civil Contempt,
Plaintiff has suffered financial harm since she could not receive finances that
she was entitled to from the monthly child and spousal support. Petitioner
had to struggle to make ends meet in taking care of the children’s and her
own financial needs. Petitioner has also suffered emotional harm, which
cannot be sufficiently compensated financially. Next, the Petitioner has been
forced to challenge the Respondent’s contempt, and the Trial Court’s
erroneous decision, which has made Petitioner incur further financial costs

11

and expenses. The Trial Court’s departure from applicable law cannot be
adequately remedied on appeal following final judgment, since it is an
interlocutory order.
b) Emergency Custody
Florida Statute § 61.534, provides that: “[u]pon the filing of a petition
seeking enforcement of a child custody determination, the petitioner may file
a verified application for the issuance of a warrant to take physical custody of
the child if the child is likely to imminently suffer serious physical harm…”
According to Gerber v. Gerber, 468 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985),
“[a] court may exercise emergency jurisdiction where there is an
emergency and a danger of serious mistreatment of the minor child.”
(Emphasis added).
Courts have granted emergency custody where there is an abusive
relationship that would cause harm to the children. See Boykin v. Boykin, 843
So.2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
In Petitioner’s August 12, 2022 Motion for Emergency Custody,
Petitioner outlined circumstances that necessitated an Order of Emergency
Custody. For example, the Respondent, without good cause and without
Petitioner’s knowledge and/or consent, took Petitioner’s name off the list to
drop off/pick up the children to/from school; the Respondent is an admitted
domestic and/or child violence abuser and rapist; the Respondent cheated

12

on Petitioner with several women including the one that he is currently living
with, who babysits the parties’ three children; the Respondent was diagnosed
with narcissistic personality disorder. There is therefore a threat that he
would inflict all kind if unnecessary pain upon the parties’ children to satisfy
his narcissistic tendencies; the Respondent uses drugs and is an alcoholic.
There is therefore a threat that he might harm the children while he is under
influence; that he is unable to carter for the children’s well-being; and that he
serves a bad example to them; together with his lawyer, the Respondent has
engaged in fraudulent conduct; the Respondent never has time for the
children. He works 60 to 70 hours a week this leaving the three children to be
“raised” and babysat by his mistress who happens to work for the
Department of Children and Families; the Respondent has engaged in
frivolous conduct, and abuse of the judicial process. For instance, he called
in a fake tip to the child abuse hotline accusing Petitioner of giving the
Parties’ 5 year old (at the time) son, meth; and the Respondent, who is an
immigrant, also admitted using the Petitioner for immigration motives to get
his sick father to the United States for medical care.
It follows; the Petitioner duly showed the Court circumstances, which
justify the issuance of an Emergency Custody Order for Petitioner.
Petitioner therefore avers that the Trial Court failed to apply the
essential requirements of the law in denying Petitioner’s Motion for

13

Emergency Custody.
As a result of the Court’s failure to apply the law on Emergency
Custody, the children have been subjected to harm and potential threat to
their health and safety. Also, the Petitioner should be permitted to withdraw
the children from their school. All the three children was physically attacked
at school, which resulted in Petitioner’s six year old son having to be taken to
the Emergency Room by Petitioner. It follows; the children’s best interests
have been disregarded. Plaintiff has also suffered emotional harm, because
she cannot stand seeing her children being subjected to the Respondent’s
conduct, against their best interests. The Trial Court’s departure from
applicable law cannot be adequately remedied on appeal following final
judgment, since it is an interlocutory order.
c) Disqualification of the Trial Court Judge
Rule 2.330, Fla. R. Jud. Admin. allows a party to seek disqualification
of the assigned trial judge where the party feels he will not receive a fair trial
or hearing because of a specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.
Rule 2.330 (f), Fla. R. Jud. Admin. provides that, upon receipt of a legally
sufficient motion to disqualify, “the judge shall immediately enter an order
granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action.”
“When a judge enters into the proceedings and becomes a participant
or an advocate, a shadow is cast upon judicial neutrality.” R.O. v. State, 46

14

So. 3d 124, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Williams v. State, 160 So. 3d
541, 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Trial judges must studiously avoid the
appearance of favoring one party in a lawsuit, and suggesting to counsel or a
party how to proceed strategically constitutes a breach of this principle. See
Chastine v. Broome, 629 So.2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (holding that a trial
judge’s provision of strategic advice to a party during a trial demonstrated
impermissible bias); see also J.F. v. State, 718 So.2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998) (disapproving a trial judge who assisted with a delinquency
prosecution by requesting the production of additional State’s evidence).
“Prejudice of a judge is a delicate question to raise, but when raised as
a bar to the trial of a cause, if predicated on grounds with a modicum of
reason, the judge against whom raised should be prompt to recuse himself.”
Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083, 1085. Where there is any legally
sufficient basis, whether factually accurate or not, for a founded fear of
possible prejudice to exist in the mind of a defendant, recusal is mandated.
See, e.g., Management Corporation of America, Inc. v. Grossman, 396 So.2d
1169 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981).
In determining the legal sufficiency of a motion to disqualify, a court
looks to see whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent
person in fear of not receiving fair and impartial treatment from the trial judge.
See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 769 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2000). In the instant case,

15

a reasonably prudent person, would be in fear that the Court, because of its
prejudice or bias deprived him of fair and impartial treatment.
In Petitioner’s August 23, 2022 Motion to Disqualify the Judge, the
Petitioner presented sufficient ground to prove why the Judge should be
disqualified. The Judge issued Orders that flew in the face of justice.
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:
(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

16

demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet
the child’s developmental needs.

The Respondent failed to observe the best interests of the children as
required by the law. In denying Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Custody,
the Trial Court Judge failed to observe the best interests of the children.
Petitioner had carefully outlined how the circumstances justified an Order in
her favor.
Petitioner therefore avers that the Trial Court failed to apply the
essential requirements of the law in denying Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify
the Judge.
As a result of the Court’s failure to apply the law on Judge
Disqualification, the Petitioner’s interest to justice has been impeded.
Notably, Petitioner has been presenting valid arguments, with sufficient
evidence, in the case. The Judge’s failure to regard the arguments and
sufficient evidence has also subjected Petitioner to suffer emotional harm,
because she cannot stand seeing her children being subjected to the
Respondent’s conduct, against their best interests. The Trial Court’s
departure from applicable law cannot be adequately remedied on appeal
following final judgment, since it is an interlocutory order.
CONCLUSION & PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Court should grant the petition and issue a writ of certiorari

17

quashing the Trial Court’s June 6, 2022 Order denying Petitioner’s
Emergency Motion for Civil Contempt/Enforcement; August 12, 2022 Order
denying Petitioner’s request for Emergency Custody; and August 23, 2022
Order denying the Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify the Judge. Petitioner also
prays for any further relief this Court may deem just.

Respectively submitted this day of __________ 2022:

____________________________
SERBRENA ALSTON
P.O. Box 691603
Orlando, FL 32869
Petitioner, pro se

18

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I hereby certify that this petition was prepared in compliance with
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.045. Notably, the petition is prepared
in Bookman Old Style, 14- point font. It contains 2,769 words excluding
words in the caption, cover page, table of contents, table of citations,
certificate of compliance, certificate of service, and signature block.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, SERBRENA ALSTON, do hereby affirm that I placed a copy of the
____________________________
SERBRENA ALSTON
P.O. Box 691603
Orlando, FL 32869
Petitioner, pro se

19

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
P.O. Box 691603
Orlando, FL 32869
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 )

 

 

Verified by MonsterInsights