Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 5, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-2525 Lower Tribunal No. 18-15058 ________________ S.S., the Mother, Petitioner, vs. Department of Children and Families, et al., Respondents. A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Prohibition. Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region and Kevin Coyle Colbert, Assistant Regional Counsel, for petitioner. Thomasina F. Moore and Laura J. Lee (Tallahassee), for respondent Guardian ad Litem; Karla Perkins, for respondent the Department of Children & Families. Before EMAS, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner, S.S., seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the trial judge from conducting further proceedings in the dependency case brought by the Department of Children and Family Services with regard to her minor child, S.Sh. No party has responded to oppose the petition. “A motion to recuse or disqualify a trial judge is legally sufficient when the alleged facts would create in a reasonably prudent person a well-founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Colarusso v. Colarusso, 20 So. 3d 985, 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (quoting Valdes-Fauli v. Valdes- Fauli, 903 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). A review of the verified motion to disqualify demonstrates that it is legally sufficient. The judge’s commentary concerning the credibility of the petitioner and family members, before the completion of the petitioner’s direct examination or presentation of any witnesses in support of her case, is sufficient to create in a reasonably prudent person a well- founded fear that she would not receive a fair hearing before this judge. See Brown v. St. George Island, Ltd., 561 So. 2d 253, 257 n.7 (Fla. 1990) (statement by judge that he feels party has lied in case generally indicates bias against party, which requires disqualification where clear implication is that judge will not believe complaining party’s testimony in future); Molina v. Perez, 187 So. 3d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Accordingly, we grant the petition. We are certain that it will be unnecessary to issue a formal writ. Petition granted. 2