Pinellas & Pasco County Voters: She's Not Fit for the Bench
Judge Elizabeth Marshall Jack has spent five years on the bench in Pinellas County presiding over a pattern of bias, ignored evidence, religious discrimination, and constitutional violations so extreme that a child has been stripped of her father for an ongoing 28 months — while every licensed professional who evaluated him confirmed he was fit. She is asking voters to keep her there. The record says she should never have been there in the first place.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
Pinellas & Pasco County · 6th Judicial Circuit · Seat 44
Case No. 20-003451-FD — Pinellas County, Florida
This site documents the court record from Tripp v. Donnelly, a family law case in Pinellas County where Judge Jack's conduct generated several separate documented violations of judicial conduct standards — each one visible on the face of her own written orders.
The father, Alan Curtis Tripp — a concert pianist, graduate student in Clinical Mental Health Counseling, and Pinellas County resident with no criminal record and no substance abuse history — has been separated from his daughter for 28 consecutive months based on several findings that directly contradict every professional who evaluated him. Not one licensed expert supported the court's conclusions. Not one.
A prior judge found the father to be a healthy, stable, fit parent. The father had unsupervised shared timesharing of his daughter for her first four years — and then custody was taken away on the basis of coaching speculation, when the father was simply trying to report what the child was coming to him about, over and over again. The child told her father she wanted to stay with him repeatedly, on her own, without prompting. The court rejected all evidence and video of the child saying this — unprovoked, uncoached, and documented.
Judge Jack refused to weigh, mention, or cite from four licensed mental health professionals who evaluated the father and confirmed his parental fitness — while relying on a professional who never met the father or the child. All four testimonials from the father's experts were rejected by the court. Not one licensed professional who actually examined the father supported Judge Jack's conclusions. She didn't just disagree with them. She discredited their findings and refused to count any of their words that were favorable to the father.
Conducted a psychological evaluation confirming parental fitness. Found that Alan has a "clear investment in his child's welfare" and in being "an adequate, or even exceptional, parent."
Four-session evaluation (July 2021) at the GAL's recommendation. Expressly concluded:
Both Shari Linger and Dr. Amanda Keating did not find a pathological parenting style.
Qualified to testify on parental-alienation dynamics. Written testimony rejected by the court.
Spoke for the father, confirming that he was not delusional. Judge Jack dismissed the professional testimony and wrote that the father is delusional and mentally not stable.
"Neither Parent has any confirmed history of substance abuse."
— GAL Report, p. 38 of 40"Neither home visit yielded any concerns from the GAL."
— GAL Report"AT appeared happy at both homes and interacted with each Parent appropriately."
— GAL Report"This factor favors both Parents."
— GAL Report, on parenting tasks and school/extracurricular capacityJudge Jack wrote in her December 23, 2025 Order that the father was analogous to "a timesharing plan involving a parent who is addicted to controlled substances, is in recovery, and the final judgment approves a parenting plan that gives the other parent the authority to refuse timesharing if the parent relapses." The father never in any way exhibited behavior of substance abuse, nor did he ever engage in any substance abuse — therefore the possibility of a relapse is not even possible. Judge Jack fabricated a substance abuse analogy that has no basis in any fact, any evaluation, or any evidence in the case — and used it to justify stripping a fit father of his child and awarding full custody to the mother. Every licensed professional who evaluated the father confirmed the opposite of what Judge Jack wrote. She didn't misread the record. She replaced it with one of her own — and a child lost her father because of it.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
No matter what happened. No matter what the evidence said. No matter what the professionals reported. Judge Jack found a way to make it the father's fault — even when the facts pointed in the exact opposite direction. This is not judicial reasoning. This is a judge who decided who was guilty before the evidence was ever presented — and then worked backward to justify it.
In her first Final Ruling, Judge Jack wrote that the mother reported the child had been upset while in the mother's own care — and then concluded, with no evidence whatsoever, that "it must have been something the father had done."
This is not judicial reasoning. This is a judge who decided the father was guilty of everything before the evidence was even presented — and then worked backward to justify it. A child is upset in the mother's care, and the father gets blamed. Professional evaluators confirm the father's fitness, and the judge calls him "disordered." The mother drives 101 mph with the child in the car, and the judge calls her "calm and reasonable." The mother skips 12+ supervised visits, and the judge says nothing. The father files motions through licensed attorneys to protect his daughter, and the judge calls him a "vexatious litigant."
Every broken order, every missed visit, every act of defiance by the mother — excused. Every professional who spoke for the father — ignored. Every religious practice the father shared with his daughter — treated as misconduct. Every motion the father filed to protect his child — punished.
This is not what a judge does. This is what a judge does when the outcome was decided before the hearing ever started — and the evidence was just something to get out of the way. A judge who blames a father for a child being upset in the mother's own care is not applying the law. She is inventing blame to reach a predetermined result. That has no place in any courtroom — and certainly not in one deciding a child's future. A judge who cannot tell the difference between evidence and blame has no business sitting on the bench. Pinellas and Pasco County voters have the power to make sure she doesn't sit there much longer.
Judge Jack gave a single supervision worker the authority to decide whether a fit father could see his own daughter — and then ignored every other professional, every other supervisor, and every piece of evidence that said the worker was wrong.
The supervision worker Judge Jack relied on to separate a father from his child produced reports that a 25-year child development professional — with a Bachelor's in Psychology, an Infant Toddler Developmental Specialist certification, and decades of experience writing factual reports on children's behavior — reviewed and found riddled with opinions, inconsistencies, and unprofessional conduct.
Here is what that review uncovered:
Despite all of this, Judge Jack credited this worker as "not biased for or against either parent" and gave her reports more weight than every licensed mental health professional who evaluated the father, every other supervisor who reported favorably, and the Guardian ad Litem. A worker who couldn't keep her own notes consistent from one paragraph to the next was trusted more than four licensed clinicians. That is not a credibility finding. That is a judge who needed a reason to do what she'd already decided to do — and found one in the one person who would give it to her.
The same professional who reviewed the worker's notes also observed the father with his daughter across years of visits, family gatherings, and everyday interactions. Here is what she saw:
The professional raised serious concerns about the long-term effects of keeping a child from her father — especially a father with no history of drug use, no record of abuse, and no reason to be in supervised visits in the first place beyond one worker's inconsistent reports. She expressed concern that the child doesn't know what happened to her father, that she may carry guilt about his absence, and that no child should lose life with her dad over misconstrued information from one person.
She handed one parent the power to sever the other parent's relationship with their child, based on no evidence, and then acted surprised when that's exactly what happened. She said she didn't act surprised but then blamed the father when he actually fought for his daughter's right to her family and father.
Judge Jack didn't just ignore the evidence. She gave one inconsistent, unprofessional supervision worker more power than every licensed expert, every favorable supervisor, the Guardian ad Litem, and the professional who spent 25 years working with children and saw a father who adored his daughter. That is not judicial discretion. That is a judge who decided the outcome and then gave one person the tool to make it happen. A child lost her father because of it. And that judge is now asking Pinellas and Pasco County voters to keep her on the bench. The question for voters is simple: if this is how she treats a fit parent with no criminal record and four professionals confirming his fitness, what would she do to you?
The entire premise of putting this father on supervised visitation was built on a finding that Judge Jack made in direct contradiction of the professional evidence before her — and she used it to take a child from a father who had done exactly what any good parent should do.
A prior judge found the father to be a healthy, stable, fit parent. The father had unsupervised shared timesharing of his daughter for her first four years. During that time, the child repeatedly came to her father — on her own, without any prompting — and told him she wanted to stay with him because her mother was hurting her. This was documented on video. The child's statements were unprovoked and uncoached.
The father's counselor, Michelle Donely, LCSW, reviewed those videos and confirmed that the child was initiating these conversations herself, that the father did not coach the child against the mother, and that the child appeared to be sincere — coming to her father because she felt safe enough in their relationship to tell him what was happening to her.
After six months of this, the father did what any responsible parent is obligated to do: he reported it.
Michelle Donely, LCSW reported to Judge Jack that the father did not coach the child. The professional evidence confirmed the child was sincere. Judge Jack ignored it entirely.
Instead, Judge Jack stated that she believed the father must have said something to the child before turning on the video to make her say those things against her mother — an assertion for which there was no evidence, no professional support, and no basis in any evaluation. It was fabricated. And Judge Jack used it to take custody away from a father who had held it for almost four years — custody that a prior judge had granted after finding him to be a healthy, stable, fit parent.
Judge Jack took custody away from the father before even having a hearing on it, and then when the father's own counselor had confirmed he did not coach the child, Judge Jack continued to uphold the supervision ruling she had made prior to any hearing on the issue, even though it was never allowed.
Judge Jack then allowed a witness to be brought in at the last minute — a witness who had never been announced to the father or his attorney, who had never met the father, who had never met the child, and who had not commented on the case for two and a half years. Judge Jack accepted this witness's testimony while disregarding the actual professionals who had examined, evaluated, and spent time with the father and the child.
In the last final ruling, there was no mention of Michelle Donely, LCSW — one of the father's counselors who had reviewed the videos, confirmed the child was sincere, and reported that the father did not coach the child. The only professional cited was the last-minute witness who had never met the father or the child. The professionals who had actually done the work were erased from the order. The witness who had done nothing was credited.
The father was placed on supervised visitation for reporting his daughter's own statements to him — statements a licensed counselor confirmed were sincere and unprompted. The court rejected all evidence and video of the child saying this, unprovoked and uncoached. He was punished for doing what every parent should do: protecting their child. The entire premise of supervision was wrong from the start — built on coaching speculation, not evidence. And Judge Jack made it happen.
The father in this case never harmed his daughter psychologically in any way, shape, or form. He reported what any responsible parent should have reported in response to what the child came to him with on her own, unprovoked and uncoached. Instead of listening to the child's own words, Judge Jack twisted and turned the father's report against him completely — punishing him for standing up for his own child's needs.
Judge Jack created the coaching notation out of her own preconceived, false bias narrative that ran counter to the evidence. She accepted speculation as a reason to ruin a loving, healthy bond between a father and a child — something she has a history of doing in other cases over the last five years as well.
A judge who takes a child's own plea for safety, twists it into a reason to punish the parent who reported it, and then calls that justice, is not protecting children. She is destroying them. The children of Pinellas and Pasco County deserve to be actually protected — not ignored, not used as pawns in a judge's predetermined narrative, not stripped of a loving parent because the judge found it more convenient to fabricate a story than to read the evidence. A judge who does this once is dangerous. A judge who has a history of doing it over five years is a threat to every family that walks into her courtroom. Vote NO on Judge Jack. Our children deserve better.
Once on supervision, the father's visits went well for nine consecutive months. Multiple supervisors submitted favorable reports. The child was happy, engaged, and running into her father's arms. By every metric, supervision was succeeding.
Judge Jack's response? She wrote in a ruling that the court "does not know how the father does without supervision" — and therefore would not count the favorable supervision reports as evidence of his fitness. This despite the fact that the father had provided four years of evidence of unsupervised custody — custody that a prior judge had granted after finding him to be a stable, fit, healthy father. Judge Jack literally discounted the evidence that proved her own premise wrong, while ignoring four years of documented history that contradicted it.
A judge who takes custody from a fit parent based on a fabricated finding, then refuses to credit the evidence that proves the finding wrong — including four years of unsupervised custody noted by a prior judge — is not applying the law. She is protecting her own decision at the expense of a child and a father. That is not judicial discretion. That is judicial misconduct.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
Judge Jack, who has no medical or psychiatric training whatsoever, used her court orders to issue what amount to lay psychiatric diagnoses — directly contradicting the licensed evaluators who actually examined the father. She put clinical labels on a man with no criminal record and no history of mental illness, using vocabulary she is not qualified to use, to justify conclusions the evidence does not support. A judge is not a doctor. A court order is not a diagnosis. Judge Jack acted as though neither of those things matters.
"The Father presents as disordered."
— Order at 10"His comments seemed to indicate paranoid and/or delusional thinking."
— Order at 7"Overall, the Father's behavior could be described in common terms as 'gaslighting.'"
— Order at 6"The Father's perceptions, as noted in the Final Judgment, are frequently inconsistent with reality."
— Order at 6"The Father has demonstrated he is completely incapable of controlling his own behavior."
— Order at 6"Throughout his testimony, the Father's seething anger towards the Mother shone through."
— Order at 6"Adjectives that describe the Father's testimony include the following: inaccurate; incongruous; convoluted; disjointed; confusing; misleading; and manipulative."
— Order at 7"This situation seems analogous to a timesharing plan involving a parent who is addicted to controlled substances, is in recovery, and the final judgment approves a parenting plan that gives the other parent the authority to refuse timesharing if the parent relapses."
— Order at 3Current thoughts or experiences consistent with hallucinations, illusions, delusions were "not evident."
The evaluation diagnosed Tourette's Disorder and Adjustment Disorder — not "paranoid," "delusional," or "disordered."
Both Shari Linger and Dr. Amanda Keating did not find a pathological parenting style. Dr. Amanda Keating found that Alan has a "clear investment in his child's welfare" and in being "an adequate, or even exceptional, parent."
The licensed professionals said one thing. Judge Jack wrote the exact opposite. A judge who overrules four licensed clinicians with psychiatric labels she's not qualified to use is not making a credibility finding. She is substituting her own lay opinion for professional expertise — and then using that opinion to take a child away from her father. That is not justice. That is a judge playing doctor with a family's life.
Judge Jack treated a Christian father's sincere religious practices as evidence of misconduct — while completely ignoring the mother's evidence of signs that directly represent the occult. A mother wearing a 666 and 5-star pentagram necklace and Baphomet imagery was not a concern to this judge. A father giving his daughter a cross necklace was. A judge who weighs one parent's religion against them while ignoring the other's is not impartial. She is not neutral. She is violating the most basic protections the law affords to people of faith — and she did it on the face of a court order, in writing, for anyone to see.
A Christian father giving his Christian daughter a cross necklace was treated as evidence requiring judicial correction. No expert testified it caused harm.
A Christian father telling a Christian child the central story of his faith was recorded in tones that presuppose harm.
The stage-direction punctuation was designed to make a Christian prayer sound bizarre. The father described it as "always praying blessings over her" — standard Christian intercessory prayer. The father also states this is a completely false statement that he did not make, and he subpoenaed the videos of the sessions to prove it. When he did so, the supervisor did not respond to the video request portion of his subpoena; then, a year later, informed him that the videos no longer existed. Judge Jack was satisfied with that, and wrote a finding based not only on no evidence, but based on the supervisor specifically withholding evidence from the father the entire time.
This is also an inaccurate statement from the judge that the father did not say. Meanwhile, Judge Jack ignored that the mother motioned several times for the judge to take the father's driver's license away, rendering him unable to work — even after receiving full custody. Judge Jack had also stated to the father's father in a prior hearing, "What does raising a child in the Lord have to do with videotaping a child?" — when the father's father stated that they believed in raising the child in the Lord. Judge Jack dismissed that and essentially mocked it, using it as a reason to discount the evidence the father was presenting of the concerned child who had come to him for months by herself, complaining about being hurt by her mother after she moved in with a man without telling the father or the court, which broke the order at the time.
Despite this documented religious mockery, Judge Jack credited the supervisor as "not biased for or against either parent." The father subpoenaed the supervision videos to prove he was only praying peacefully. The father also never in any way thought that Jesus wasn't in the child. The supervisor never responded to the subpoenas, later claimed the videos didn't exist, and Judge Jack took her word — permitting the evidence to be destroyed.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
Judge Jack and opposing counsel Terryn H. Bennett, Esq. served together as Assistant State Attorneys in the same office — the Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office — for approximately two years. In more than five years presiding over this case, Judge Jack never once disclosed this relationship. Not in any transcript. Not in any order. Not in any communication to the parties. A judge who hides a prior same-office professional relationship with one side's attorney while that attorney appears before her in a contested case is not just failing to disclose — she is actively preventing the parties from knowing what they're walking into. That is not an oversight. It is a deliberate concealment of a fact that, had it been known, would have allowed the parties to evaluate it, seek recusal, preserve the issue, or make an informed decision about waiver. The Florida Code of Judicial Conduct required disclosure. Judge Jack said nothing.
Canon 2 of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. Canon 3E(1) and its commentary provide that a judge should disclose on the record information that the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification — even when the judge believes no actual basis for disqualification exists.
Whether or not a two-year prior same-office relationship is automatically disqualifying is not the question. The question is whether a reasonable litigant would want to know about it. The answer is obviously yes. And the disclosure was never made.
Because the relationship was never disclosed, the father was deprived of any meaningful opportunity to evaluate it, seek recusal, preserve the issue, or make an informed decision regarding waiver. The disclosure framework exists precisely to protect that opportunity. Judge Jack eliminated it — by saying nothing.
The problem is not merely that Judge Jack and Ms. Bennett once worked in the same office. It is that the relationship was never disclosed at all — depriving a litigant of the procedural protections the disclosure regime exists to preserve. A judge who hides a prior professional relationship with one side's counsel, while presiding over a contested case involving a child, and then issues rulings that consistently favor that counsel's client, has compromised the appearance of impartiality in ways the Code of Judicial Conduct was written to prevent. The voters of Pinellas and Pasco County should consider whether a judge who won't follow the Code deserves another term.
On January 5, 2024, opposing counsel Bennett filed a last-minute motion to continue a hearing scheduled for January 8, 2024 — a hearing on the father's emergency contempt/enforcement motion, which addressed the mother's 101 mph reckless driving with the child in the vehicle.
The continuance was granted. The hearing never happened.
What happened instead on January 8, 2024? The mother was in a different Pinellas County courtroom — pleading nolo contendere (no contest) to the aggressive-driving charge, accepting a $400 fine and court-ordered Aggressive Driving School. The mother had known about this traffic court date since December 19, 2023 — more than two weeks before Bennett filed the continuance.
So the timing was not a coincidence. The mother had a known, scheduled court appearance for her own criminal driving offense on the exact day her family court hearing on that same driving was supposed to take place. Bennett's continuance didn't resolve a scheduling conflict revealed at the last minute — it eliminated a conflict the mother had been living with for weeks. And the 101 mph hearing was never rescheduled. The issue was never adjudicated before the final ruling.
Two weeks after the continuance, Bennett withdrew from the case entirely — the order signed by Judge Jack herself. In a case free of the undisclosed relationship, a judge would ordinarily inquire into whether counsel's withdrawal — coming on the heels of a successful last-minute continuance that buried the 101 mph hearing — was in the client's interest or the attorney's. No such inquiry appears anywhere in the record.
Bennett re-entered the case 18 months later, on July 14, 2025 — with no disclosure of the prior same-office relationship accompanying her renewed appearance.
In a custody case where the child's safety is paramount, the apparent foreclosure of any timely hearing on allegations that the mother drove approximately 101 miles per hour with the minor child in the vehicle is not a collateral concern. It goes to the heart of the integrity of the fact-finding process itself. A hearing on the mother's 101 mph reckless driving was continued so the mother could go plead no contest in traffic court the same day — and then was never heard again. Judge Jack signed the withdrawal order. And the undisclosed relationship meant none of it ever received the neutral scrutiny it deserved.
Due process is not a technicality. It is the constitutional guarantee that every person gets a fair hearing before the government takes away their rights. Judge Jack violated it — repeatedly, documented on the face of her own orders, in ways that no judge who respects the Constitution would tolerate.
On April 23, 2026, Judge Jack's judicial assistant emailed the father directly and opposing counsel, directing him to "coordinate with Ms. Bennett's office" — while excluding the father's attorney of record, David Hurvitz, Esq. The judge directed a represented party to communicate directly with opposing counsel, which would have placed the father in violation of ethical rules.
The December 23, 2025 Order acknowledges: "No Court reporter was present" — despite three full days of hearings on October 28–30, 2025. Judge Jack then issued a 16-page order with detailed demeanor-based findings about the father's testimony — findings that, without a transcript, are effectively unreviewable.
Four licensed examining clinicians (Dr. Keating, Shari Linger LMHC, Dr. Coughlin, and Michelle Donely, LCSW) were refused or their testimony rejected, while the court relied on a professional who never examined the parties.
After the father filed constitutionally protected petitions, writs of prohibition, and recusal motions — most of which were prepared by licensed counsel — Judge Jack designated him a "vexatious litigant" and barred him from filing any new motions without prior court approval.
The father subpoenaed videos of supervised sessions to prove he was only praying peacefully with his child. The supervisor never responded to the subpoenas, later claimed the videos didn't exist, and Judge Jack permitted the agency's 15-day retention policy to destroy the evidence without addressing the spoliation.
Multiple independent supervision agencies submitted favorable reports. The child was described as happy, engaged, and running into her father's arms. Every single agency that supervised the father reported positively. All of it was ignored — because it didn't fit the outcome Judge Jack had already decided to reach.
Nine months of consistent, favorable reports describing the child as happy and engaged.
Stated to the father that removing the father would "destroy" the child, and wrote that the child told her father multiple times that she loved him.
Professional supervisor with three FSU certifications. Favorable reports.
Even the supervisor the court ultimately credited described the child as "happy to see dad," running into his arms, engaged in age-appropriate activity.
Despite all of this — despite nine months of favorable reports, despite a supervisor who said removing the father would "destroy" the child, despite even the supervisor Judge Jack ultimately credited describing the child as "happy to see dad" — the father has not been allowed to see, call, or communicate with his daughter for more than 28 consecutive months. Her 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th birthdays. Three Father's Days. Multiple court-ordered visitation windows that Judge Jack simply refused to enforce. A child lost her father, and Judge Jack let it happen. Not because the evidence supported it. Because she decided it would.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
Read side by side, Judge Jack's December 23, 2025 Order applies opposite vocabularies to the two parents. The father — with no criminal record, no substance abuse, and four professionals confirming his fitness — is described in the language of pathology. The mother — with 101 mph reckless driving, 12+ no-show visits, deposition defiance, and a move into a felon's home — is described in the language of health and normalcy. This is not a difference of judicial opinion. This is bias, written into a court order, signed by a judge who is asking voters to trust her with another term.
A father with no criminal record, no substance abuse, and three professionals confirming his fitness was called "disordered," "delusional," and "manipulative." A mother with 101 mph reckless driving, 12 plus no-shows, deposition defiance, and a move into a felon's home was called "credible," "calm," and "a healthy person." This is not justice. This is not a credibility finding. This is a judge who looked at two parents, decided which one she liked, and then wrote opposite descriptions of them in the same order — regardless of what the evidence actually showed. Bias on the face of a court order is the most direct proof of misconduct any record can provide. The voters need not look beyond the Order's four corners. Instead of Judge Jack trying to silence the father, perhaps she should understand that her oath of office required her to not contradict everything that is true about the father and actually restore the relationship with his daughter — so that the child will actually have her father again. The one she loved. The one she expressed she loved and wanted to be with, over and over again, over a period of years. A judge who takes that from a child and then calls herself fit for the bench is not just wrong. She is dangerous.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
Judge Jack's conduct has been reversed by Florida's Second District Court of Appeal — not once, but twice. Appellate courts don't reverse judges for minor errors. They reverse when a judge's conduct is so far outside the bounds of proper judicial behavior that the ruling itself cannot stand. Judge Jack has hit that bar twice. During her campaign, Judge Jack has bragged that she is proud of her orders and that she follows case law. That is not true according to the appellate court's record on her. Judge Jack has publicly lied about her record and how she completely disregarded case law in cases that have been reversed — something she should not be proud of.
368 So. 3d 49 (2d DCA)
The Second District reversed Judge Jack for verbatim adoption of a party's proposed order, which contained mathematical errors and citation to a non-existent rule. The appellate court found that wholesale judicial adoption of one party's submission compromises the appearance of independent decision-making.
Unanimously reversed by 2d DCA, 2026
Judge Jack was unanimously reversed by the Second District Court of Appeal.
The father filed three separate verified motions to disqualify Judge Jack. Each presented specific, documented grounds — an undisclosed relationship with opposing counsel, religious discrimination written into court orders, ex parte communications. Each was denied with a single sentence: "legally insufficient." No analysis. No reasoning. No explanation. Three substantial motions, three one-sentence denials, and zero engagement with the facts. That is not a judge ruling on legal sufficiency. That is a judge refusing to answer the question because the answer would require her to step down.
Motion to Disqualify filed by Richard Mockler, Esq.
Expanded pro se Motion to Disqualify filed
38-page verified Motion to Disqualify filed — incorporating the treatment of Bennett, the religious discrimination findings, and the ex parte history. Filed by David Hurvitz, Esq.
Under Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978), once a legally sufficient motion to disqualify is filed, the judge may do only one thing: rule on the motion. She may not take further substantive action.
Judge Jack denied the motions and continued issuing substantive rulings anyway — exercising judicial power the law says she no longer had. A Petition for Writ of Prohibition was filed with the Second District Court of Appeal (Case No. 2D2024-2850) on December 17, 2024. A second Emergency Petition was filed February 25, 2026.
After Richard Mockler, Esq. filed the November 18, 2024 recusal motion — which challenged Judge Jack's order closing the case and denying the father's motions without a hearing — Judge Jack admitted she was wrong to have shut down the case and to have ordered the clerk to close the case file the way she did.
Then, approximately a year and a half later, she did the same thing again on this same case.
This shows her intent never changed. Her admission of wrongdoing was not a correction — it was a deflection, made so she could stay on the case when there were sufficient grounds for her to recuse herself. Once the pressure subsided, she repeated the very conduct she had admitted was wrong.
A judge who admits she was wrong to shut down a father's access to the court, then repeats the exact same conduct a year and a half later, is not learning from her mistakes. She is managing the optics so she can keep doing what she was always going to do. That is not what the voters of Pinellas and Pasco County should expect from a judge — and it is not what they should tolerate.
Two separate attorneys — Richard Mockler, Esq. and Mark Baseman, Esq. — documented Judge Jack's conduct in formal legal filings. Mockler filed the Verified Motion for Disqualification of Trial Judge on November 18, 2024. Baseman filed the Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Second District Court of Appeal on December 17, 2024, and the Petitioner's Reply on January 24, 2025. Together, these filings documented a pattern of conduct that goes far beyond adverse rulings:
As stated in Mockler's motion: the father has a reasonable fear that the court has prejudged the value of the father's positions, including what is in the best interest of the child. The motion made clear that Judge Jack has no interest in the best interests of the child — or else she would not have allowed the child to go half a year without any contact with her father. That time has now been two and a half years. Completely and utterly egregious, and not fit for office.
Two separate attorneys — using two separate legal vehicles — documented the same pattern: a judge who tells one parent what to say to win, accepts that parent's unsworn statements as truth while rejecting the other parent's evidence-backed reply, closes the case to prevent the other parent from being heard, admits it was wrong — and then does it again a year and a half later. That is not a judge. That is an outcome-engineer wearing a robe. And the voters have the power to take that robe away.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
For two and a half years, Judge Jack has not once checked on the status, well-being, or welfare of the child at the center of this case. Not one check. Not one balance. Not one inquiry into what the child has been told, what she has been through, or what damage has been done to her.
The father requested therapy for his daughter multiple times. Judge Jack ignored every request and has done absolutely nothing to verify the child's emotional or psychological status. Meanwhile, the child has been taught to call a non-father figure "dad" — while her actual father, who lives ten minutes down the street and has been trying to see her every single day, has been erased from her life entirely. A judge who allows a child to be taught that another man is her father — while deliberately concealing from the child where her actual father is — has no concern for the child's mental health or best interests. That is not a custody decision. That is the destruction of a child's relationship with her parent, facilitated by a judge who refused to intervene.
The mother repeatedly called the police on the father during his court-awarded timesharing. The police would arrive, observe the child, and confirm on the record that the child was fine and doing well with the father. The next day, the mother would file emergency motions — abusing the system — claiming the child was not okay with the father. This happened right after the police had independently confirmed the opposite. Judge Jack did nothing to stop this pattern of frivolous police calls and abusive emergency filings.
The mother also took down the father's phone line without notice, forcing him to obtain an entirely new phone line. She excluded him from multiple of the child's doctor visits without telling him. She removed him from the child's medical portal — in direct violation of the court order. And right after the first final rulings, she moved the child into the home of a five-time felon — without telling the father or the judge — breaking the court order. Judge Jack did nothing about any of it. She allowed the mother to break the order. She allowed the mother to do whatever she wanted, in everything, no matter what the evidence showed.
For two and a half years, this child has not been told where her father is. She has not been told that he has been fighting for her. She has not been told that he never left. When the truth comes out — and it will — this child will have to process that she was lied to for years, that her father was nearby the entire time, and that a judge allowed it to happen. That is a trauma Judge Jack created and has refused to address.
On Christmas Eve 2023, the child had a documented, joyful visit with her father and his side of the family. Pictures, videos, and testimonial support from Nannies Who Care all confirmed the child was happy, safe, and thriving. The mother objected to it — and attempted to use the child having a good time with her father and his family against them. This showed the intent and hate from one parent to another that Judge Jack completely ignored. It is a sad reality that even when the child was well, safe, and doing wonderfully with her father, the mother's motion to prevent that happiness was overlooked by Judge Jack — a judge who allowed a mother to object to her own child's joy with her father and did nothing about it.
The mother's objection to her own child's happiness with the other parent reveals an intent that any judge handling a family law case should recognize immediately. Judge Jack completely ignored it. Even when the child was well, safe, and doing wonderfully with her father, the mother's motion to prevent it was overlooked — and the father's relationship with his child was further eroded.
Judge Jack wrote in her December 23, 2025 Order that the mother "does not speak about the Father with ill will." This claim is directly contradicted by the Guardian ad Litem report, which specifically stated that the mother does speak about the father with ill will, and has done so in front of the child. It is also contradicted by the mother's documented conduct: motioning to take the father's driver's license and even passport, filing repeated protective orders, excluding the father from the child's doctor visits without notice, and taking down the father's phone line without telling him at the beginning of the case — severing his ability to contact his daughter.
More fundamentally, Judge Jack's claim that the mother doesn't speak ill of the father is made with zero inquiry into what the child has actually been told. In two and a half years, Judge Jack never once checked. She wrote that the mother doesn't speak ill of the father not because she verified it — but because she decided to write it. That is not a finding based on evidence. That is a judge writing whatever she wants, in direct contradiction of the record, in willful ignorance of the child's actual circumstances, and in defiance of the GAL's own report.
A judge who removes a child from her father, never checks on the child for two and a half years, ignores every therapy request, allows the child to be taught that another man is her father, and then writes — without any investigation — that the mother doesn't speak ill of the parent she fought to erase, is not presiding over a case. She is abandoning a child. And she is asking voters to keep her on the bench.
Vote NO on Judge Jack — August 18, 2026
Michelle Donely, LCSW. Dr. Wendy Coughlin. Attorney Richard Mockler. The Guardian ad Litem. Four separate professionals — independently, each in their own capacity — recommended the appointment of a parental coordinator in this case. Judge Jack ignored every single one.
A parental coordinator exists to reduce conflict, protect the child, and ensure both parents follow the court's orders. In a case where the mother cancelled over a dozen supervised visits, changed schools four times, moved the child into a felon's home, refused to produce financial discovery, and took down the father's phone line — the need for a parental coordinator was not a suggestion. It was a necessity.
Four professionals said so. Judge Jack said no — or more precisely, said nothing. She simply ignored them, as she ignored every recommendation that didn't align with the outcome she had already determined.
A judge who ignores four independent professional recommendations — from a counselor, a psychologist, an attorney, and a court-appointed Guardian ad Litem — in a case involving a child's welfare is not exercising discretion. She is refusing to do her job. The word for that is not "judicial restraint." The word is neglect. And in a family law case, neglect by the judge has consequences measured in a child's life.
The record contains documented communications between the mother and the court-ordered supervision worker — communications that show coordination, coaching, and a shared agenda. Judge Jack was presented with this evidence and chose to ignore it.
Throughout the supervision period, the supervisor's own text messages with the mother show religious mockery, ex parte coordination, and prejudgment of the father. These are not allegations. They are documented in the record.
Critically, the concerns about the supervisor's conduct did not appear in the record until the father filed his motion for summary judgment and laid out in writing what the supervisor had done. Before that, the mother repeatedly stated she did not want to go to trial. The moment the father documented the supervisor's misconduct, the mother suddenly changed her position — now she wanted to go to trial, specifically to bring the supervisor in to testify.
The reason is clear from the record: the mother and the supervisor were in communication, and the record contains text messages in which the mother coaches the supervisor on how to shut down visits for good. This is not speculation. It is documented. And Judge Jack ignored it.
Once brought in to testify, the supervisor made claims that appear nowhere in any written report during the entire supervision period — claims that the child was "afraid" of the father, claims never previously documented, never previously mentioned, and contradicted by the supervisor's own contemporaneous reports describing the child as "happy to see dad." These claims surfaced only after the mother and the supervisor coordinated, and only after the father had already documented the supervisor's prior misconduct. The supervisor also came into court after seeing how the father told the truth about her on the record, and suddenly made the accusation that she is afraid of the father — claiming she feared the father's "aura." This claim appears nowhere in any written report during the entire supervision period and was never previously mentioned. It surfaced only after the mother and the supervisor coordinated, and only after the father had already documented the supervisor's prior misconduct. Judge Jack put that accusation in the final ruling while ignoring that it wasn't anywhere in the record and the supervisor was simply making things up in order to avoid accountability. A claim that a professional supervisor fears a father's "aura" — a man with no criminal record, no history of violence, and a church child-supervision certification — is not credible testimony. It is a fabrication so transparent that any judge who gave it weight either wasn't reading the record or didn't care what it said.
The father subpoenaed the supervision videos to prove his account. The supervisor did not respond to the subpoena. A year later, she claimed the videos no longer existed — asserting the company "destroys all videos every month," a policy that was never disclosed to the father. Judge Jack accepted that without inquiry — and then wrote findings based on testimony that was never corroborated by any video evidence, from a witness whose own prior reports said the opposite.
A parental-alienation specialist who has testified in over 100 family cases called the supervisor's conduct "particularly egregious." A 25-year child development professional documented the supervisor's inconsistencies under oath. Other parents have left public reviews describing similar misconduct by this same supervisor — a pattern that extends beyond this case.
While the mother received multiple hearings on her protective orders — even after they were initially turned down — the father's own protective order motion was never given a hearing. The mother threatened the father at a drop-off, telling him he was being watched. The mother admitted on video that she had lied to Judge Jack in court. The father asked for a hearing on his motion for protective order before the final hearings. That hearing was never granted. Instead, the mother — who filed three excessive protective orders without grounds — was granted hearing after hearing, even after the court turned her down. The father, with documented evidence of threats and admitted perjury, was never heard. Judge Jack's discretion in this regard is not just questionable — it is a documented pattern of favoring one parent over the other, in direct contradiction of the evidence, that should never be trusted by any voter in Pinellas or Pasco County.
A judge who ignores documented coordination between one side's counsel and a witness, ignores fabricated testimony that contradicts the witness's own prior reports, refuses to hear one parent's protective orders while granting repeated hearings on the other's, and does nothing when one parent severs the other's phone access and excludes them from medical visits — is not a neutral arbiter. She is a participant in the outcome. And the record proves it.
Judge Elizabeth Marshall Jack is asking Pinellas and Pasco County voters to keep her on the bench. The record says she doesn't belong there. A judge who ignores every expert, fabricates diagnoses, discriminates based on religion, hides a relationship with opposing counsel, violates due process, and takes a child from a fit parent while excusing the other parent's reckless driving and 12+ no-shows is not fit to serve. On August 18, 2026, the voters of Pinellas and Pasco County have the chance to say so.
August 18, 2026
Pinellas & Pasco County · 6th Judicial Circuit · Seat 44
Share this site. Tell your neighbors. Vote.