Opinion ID: 2545693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Count III (The Injunctions)

Text: The Hearing Panel considered Judge Eriksson's disagreement with the manner in which domestic violence matters are determined in his circuit as a political dispute similar to the circumstances of In re Barnes, 2 So.3d 166 (Fla.2009). The panel noted that, unlike other judges in the county, Judge Eriksson did not provide a preliminary general explanation to the petitioners and respondents. The panel considered Judge Eriksson's demeanor that day to be cavalier and insensitive. The panel also noted, [I]t was not up to the judge to make the hearsay objection for the respondent who did not make it himself. The panel found: Judge Eriksson obviously had a difficult time in attempting to balance the interests of the petitioners versus the interests of the respondents. Despite this difficulty in balancing it remains that a cause of action for an injunction exists, that petitioners are encouraged to apply pro se, and that it would not have been a breach of simple fairness to ask the petitioner whether he or she wished to testify. After noting Judge Eriksson's recognition of his own shortcomings, his remediation of his approach, and his engagement in counseling, the panel was confident no similar conduct will occur in the future. The panel thus concluded that there should be no separate penalty over and above [a] reprimand. Based on these findings of misconduct as to Counts I and III, the Hearing Panel recommended a public reprimand by this Court and that Judge Eriksson be responsible for the costs associated with these proceedings.