A Florida court recently ruled on a child custody case involving Edward Joseph Unger and his former wife, Jennifer Rose Unger. The District Court of Appeal of Florida addressed several issues related to contempt orders concerning time-sharing arrangements for their children. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the role of judges after disqualification and the procedures for handling contempt motions.
The case, Edward Joseph Unger v. Jennifer Rose Unger, was filed under docket number 4D2025-2209 on August 26, 2026. The appeal arose from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County. Edward Unger represented himself in the appeal, while Jennifer Unger did not appear in court.
The dispute began when Jennifer Unger filed a contempt motion against Edward Unger, alleging he willfully violated time-sharing orders regarding their children. The initial judge granted this motion, leading Edward Unger to file a motion to vacate that order. After the initial judge was disqualified, another judge denied his request for reconsideration. Edward Unger argued that the written contempt order contained findings that were not verbally announced during the contempt hearing.
The court ruled that Edward Unger was correct in his assertion that the written contempt order included findings that were not discussed during the hearing. However, rather than voiding the entire order, the court decided that the initial judge should amend the written order to remove the unannounced findings. Judge Conner authored the opinion, with Judges Ciklin and Burton concurring.
The court stated, "the proper remedy is for the initial judge to enter an amended written contempt order which deletes the unannounced findings."
The ruling emphasized that a disqualified judge generally cannot participate further in a case. However, if a judge has already heard testimony and arguments, they may still perform the ministerial act of writing an order that reflects their oral ruling. The court noted that substantive changes to the ruling that were not articulated during the hearing are considered void.
In this case, the written contempt order erroneously stated that Jennifer Unger was not found in contempt for a prior move to Miami, despite an earlier ruling indicating otherwise. The court found that the initial judge's written order contained misstatements about the prior contempt ruling, which were not discussed in the 2025 contempt hearing.
The ruling has significant implications for similar cases involving child custody and contempt motions. It clarifies how courts should handle situations where a judge has been disqualified but has already made oral rulings. This decision may serve as a precedent for future cases involving the authority of judges to issue written orders following disqualification.
Moving forward, this ruling may affect how courts handle contempt motions in child custody cases. It reinforces the importance of clear communication during hearings and the need for judges to accurately reflect their oral findings in written orders. The decision also serves as a reminder to litigants about the potential pitfalls of relying on artificial intelligence in preparing court documents, as cautioned by the court.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Edward Unger plans to appeal this decision further. There are currently no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the ruling. The court's instructions to amend the written contempt order must be followed, and it remains to be seen how the initial judge will respond to the appellate court's decision.