In re Disqualification of Floyd, 986 N.E.2d 10

Affidavits of disqualification were filed by the minor child’s maternal grandparents and their attorney seeking to disqualify Judge Alison L. Floyd from further proceedings in CU03109953.
This is Lawson’s second disqualification attempt; a prior affidavit in June 2012 was denied on Aug. 10, 2012 (No. 12-AP-069).
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Appellate District reversed Floyd’s custody decision and remanded for a new trial, criticizing delays and several evidentiary rulings.
Affiants allege bias/partiality toward the father and concern over a new custody evaluator, claiming “appearance of expert shopping.”
Judge Floyd responded she would conduct a fair, impartial retrial and follow the appellate mandate; counsel for the father argued pretrial delay would prejudice his client.
The court held that no extraordinary circumstances or bias were shown; a judge may preside over a retrial after remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether affidavits show bias to justify removal	Lawson alleges bias and partiality based on appellate rebuke and election history.	No demonstrated bias; reversal of rulings does not prove prejudice; appearance of bias insufficient.	No grounds to disqualify; presumption of impartiality stands.
Whether extraordinary circumstances exist requiring disqualification	Critical appellate opinion and past election fight create extraordinary circumstances.	Neither factor alone nor combined shows extraordinary circumstances; speculation is insufficient.	No extraordinary circumstances; disqualification denied.
Whether assignment of a new evaluator suggests bias or expert shopping	New evaluator appearance indicates prejudice and manipulation of the process.	New evaluator chosen by clinic director for fresh perspective; not a result of judge influence.	No evidence of bias or improper influence; speculative allegations rejected.
Whether a judge who had rulings reversed on appeal can preside over retrial	Remand signals lack of confidence in judge’s impartiality for retrial.	Kimmel and related authority permit retrial before same judge despite appellate reversal.	Judge may preside over retrial; no disqualification required.

In re Disqualification of Kimmel, 36 Ohio St.3d 602 (1987) (erroneous rulings are not grounds for disqualification)
In re Disqualification of Light, 36 Ohio St.3d 604 (1988) (errors of law or procedure are appealable, not disqualifying)
In re Disqualification of Maschari, 88 Ohio St.3d 1212 (1999) (election opponent alone does not warrant disqualification)
In re Disqualification of Hurley, 2006-Ohio-7229 (2006) (remand may allow retrial with same judge)
In re Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606 (1988) (vague, unsubstantiated allegations insufficient for bias)
In re Disqualification of Flanagan, 127 Ohio St.3d 1236 (2009) (speculation-based allegations insufficient to show bias)
In re Disqualification of Hall, 94 Ohio St.3d 1230 (2001) (delay in ruling must be shown to reveal bias)
In re D.C.J., 2012-Ohio-4154 (2012) (appellate rebuke of custody decision; remand for new trial)
In re Disqualification of Floyd, No. 12-AP-069 (2012) (denial of prior disqualification petition)
Columbus v. Hayes, 68 Ohio App.3d 184 (1990) (remanding for different proceedings where judge did not follow appellate mandate)