Campaign Phone
6892591034
I'd point to Troxel v. Granville, which held that fit parents have a fundamental right to make decisions about their children's care and custody, and that courts can't override that judgment absent a real showing of harm. As a family law attorney, Guardian ad Litem, and mother myself, I've seen how vital it is that the law respect a fit parent's own judgment rather than substitute a court's preferences. Troxel struck that balance correctly.
I rely on a disciplined process, not instinct, deciding strictly on the law, the record, and precedent, not personal feelings about the parties. I test my own assumptions against the evidence before ruling. As a Guardian ad Litem, I've represented a child's best interest even when it didn't align with either parent's wishes, training me to separate reaction from what the law requires. I also believe in explaining my reasoning on the record, since that discipline itself forces impartiality.
My family law practice has put me on both sides of abuse allegations, which reflects how I approach every case, following the facts, not a predetermined narrative. In one matter, I helped disprove a father's wrongful abuse accusation and reunite him with his child. In another, I helped a mother prove abuse occurred, protecting her child from harm. I let the record dictate the result, whether that means clearing a name or protecting a victim.
Florida's hybrid system strikes largely the right balance. For trial courts, circuit and county, including the seat I'm seeking, I support elections. Trial judges have the most direct, frequent contact with everyday Floridians, and election preserves real accountability to that community. For appellate courts, merit selection through the Judicial Nominating Commission process makes more sense, since it insulates judges reviewing legal questions on the record from campaign pressures, while still requiring periodic retention votes. In short: accountability to the public where judges interact with the public directly, and insulation from politics where the work is primarily legal analysis.
No, there's a meaningful access-to-justice gap, particularly for self-represented litigants in family court, landlord-tenant matters, and small claims. Many Floridians can't afford counsel but don't qualify for legal aid, and the system's complexity is a real barrier even for people trying in good faith. I'd like to see continued investment in self-help centers and plain-language forms, expanded pro bono and reduced-fee referral programs through local bar associations, and courts proactive about explaining process to unrepresented parties, without stepping outside the judge's role of neutrality. I've seen firsthand how much an outcome can turn on whether someone understood the process, that's fixable
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Candidate has not yet responded.
Campaign Phone
407-739-3745
There are many important U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the past 50 years. However, I would be hard pressed to believe that there is one more important than Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned the longstanding precedent of Roe v. Wade regarding abortion rights. No matter one's opinion on the matter, this decision had an immediate and broad impact in every state of the U.S.
I can confidently say that for the past 9.5 years I have practiced this regularly as a hearing officer (similar position to an administrative law judge). The methodology for setting aside personal preferences and feelings is quite simple: Review the law and determine the legal facts, then apply the law to the facts. Neither the law nor legal facts take into consideration a judge's personal preferences or feelings, allowing for easy avoidance of their imposition.
There are many, but to build on the previous question, one of the issues my office regularly faces involves the application of a statute that often seems unfair and one that I generally do not agree with. However, as I pride myself on separating my personal beliefs, opinions, and feelings from my decisions, I apply this law as written to the facts of the case. I also use this issue as a teaching tool for impartiality when training other hearings officers with my office throughout the state.
Though our state constitution provides process for both election and appointment, a referendum was required in the year 2000, which was placed before the voters in each of Florida's twenty judicial circuits and sixty-seven counties concerning the method of selecting circuit and county judges. A majority of voters in each circuit and county voted to retain an election process rather than merit-selection. I stand by the decision made by the citizens of our state that elections are the preferred process for selecting judges. Appointments should be reserved solely for those lengthy vacancies that a regular election process will not fill, so as to ensure due process within our judiciary.
In my experience working largely with pro se litigants as an attorney appearing regularly in county court and as a presiding hearing officer, I can say that there is not adequate access to legal help. This is not the case with criminal matters where attorneys are assigned based on indigency, but rather in civil or administrative matters. When it comes to access to legal help there are many resources, particularly in our digital age, but I have found many pro se litigants simply do not know where or how to find these resources. Legal aid and other resources are also heavily burdened. More space is needed for me to adequately address this issue. However, I do intend to provide instruction in my court on where and how to access resources.
