Florida JQC Attachment A — Statement of Facts (Judge Kristin K. Kanner)

 Page 1 of 14 

JQC Attachment A — Statement of Facts 

(Judge Kristin K. Kanner) 

A. Respondent’s Role 

(Primary issuing authority; retaliation and enforcement after notice) 

Judge Kristin K. Kanner is the judicial officer who issued the May 22, 2025 and 

May 27, 2025 orders, including the order relied upon to effectuate the interstate pick

up and seizure of my minor child on May 27, 2025. 

These enforcement orders were issued after my May 12, 2025 emergency pro se 

filings, which placed the Court on explicit notice of: 

• predictable and foreseeable physical and psychological harm to my minor 

child; 

• documented harm occurring under court-imposed processes; 

• jurisdictional defects requiring immediate UCCJEA review; and 

• the need for emergency intervention to prevent further harm. 

Despite this actual notice, Judge Kanner escalated enforcement rather than halting 

proceedings and adjudicating threshold issues, including jurisdiction, due process, 

service and address defects, and child safety. 

Page 2 of 14 

The enforcement posture proceeded without a written UCCJEA jurisdictional 

determination, without an evidentiary hearing, and without findings addressing 

child safety, despite the documented emergency context and foreseeable risk of harm. 

B. Immediate and Deliberate Retaliation; Refusal to Disqualify; Self

Adjudication 

I allege that Judge Kanner’s enforcement actions and subsequent procedural 

handling occurred in immediate and deliberate retaliation for protected emergency 

filings and abuse-reporting filings. 

I further allege that Judge Kanner repeatedly refused to disqualify herself, 

including by ruling on her own disqualification motions, rather than ensuring neutral 

reassignment and halting enforcement while jurisdictional and due-process defects 

remained unresolved. 

This refusal to disqualify persisted despite the existence of an active criminal 

investigation directly related to the underlying facts, court processes, and enforcement 

actions at issue in this case. 

Page 3 of 14 

C. Continued Exercise of Authority During a Criminal Investigation; 

Recusal Only After Fraud Proof; No Vacatur of Pick-Up Orders 

At all relevant times, Judge Kanner was aware, or should have been aware, that a 

criminal investigation was ongoing concerning matters directly intertwined with the 

enforcement posture of this case, including the issuance and execution of the child pick

up orders. 

Despite this, Judge Kanner was permitted to remain on the case and continue 

exercising judicial authority, including issuing and enforcing orders affecting custody, 

enforcement, and procedural posture, while the criminal investigation remained active 

and unresolved. 

I further allege that Judge Kanner only recused after I proved fraud and after 

demonstrably false public statements were made to the media concerning the 

criminal investigation, creating an untenable appearance of impropriety and conflict. 

Critically, even after recusal, no action was taken to: 

• vacate the child pick-up orders; 

• stay enforcement; or 

• correct the operative enforcement posture 

Page 4 of 14 

that initiated and enabled the continued separation and alleged endangerment of my 

minor child. 

The failure to vacate or stay these orders permitted their continued reliance and 

enforcement despite unresolved jurisdictional defects, unresolved safety issues, and the 

acknowledged conflict created by the criminal investigation. 

D. Harm and Integrity Impact 

(Judicial misconduct, not mere legal error) 

The misconduct reported here is not a disagreement with judicial reasoning. It is the 

retaliatory and procedurally coercive use of judicial power, combined with: 

• repeated refusal to disqualify; 

• repeated self-adjudication of disqualification motions; 

• continued exercise of authority during an active criminal investigation; and 

• sustained maintenance of enforcement orders despite unresolved threshold 

defects and documented emergency harm. 

This conduct undermines judicial impartiality, compromises public confidence, and 

reflects a failure to adhere to ethical obligations requiring avoidance of both actual 

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. 

Page 5 of 14 

Accordingly, this matter is reported to the Judicial Qualifications Commission as 

judicial misconduct, separate and apart from any appellate or merits-based review. 

Record Anchor: 

The above misconduct is corroborated by the official docket and by my verified 

filings challenging void orders and preserving non-waiver objections, including the 

January 21, 2026 orders identified as subject to mandatory vacatur and submitted 

expressly for preservation purposes only, without consenting to jurisdiction. 

Ongoing Unlawful Withholding, Abuse, and Court Notice 

Since May 27, 2025, my minor child has been unlawfully withheld, concealed, 

and subjected to ongoing abuse, despite my maintaining sole lawful custody since 

May 2, 2022, pursuant to controlling court orders that were never lawfully vacated. 

Throughout this period, the Court and the named judicial officers were repeatedly 

placed on actual notice, through sworn filings and docketed evidence, of: 

• documented hospitalizations and medical risk to the child; 

• teacher testimony and school-based reports; 

Page 6 of 14 

• third-party witness statements; and 

• direct abuse disclosures made by the child during recorded TalkingParents 

communications over a period exceeding six months. 

Despite this sustained and escalating notice, no judicial officer issued a written 

UCCJEA jurisdictional determination, no evidentiary hearing was held to address 

child safety, and no action was taken to vacate or suspend the enforcement orders that 

enabled the continued separation. 

The failure to intervene occurred while the child remained outside the State of 

Florida, while jurisdiction was actively disputed, and while emergency filings remained 

unresolved. 

These facts are documented in the trial-court docket and in parallel federal 

proceedings, including: 

• Dressler v. Gawor et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case 

No. 0:25-cv-61554-PMH; and 

• Dressler v. State of Florida et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of 

Georgia (Brunswick Division), Case No. 2:25-cv-00154-LGW-BWC. 

Page 7 of 14 

The continued enforcement of void or ultra vires orders under these conditions 

constitutes non-neutral judicial conduct, not mere legal error, and presents a 

foreseeable risk of severe and irreparable harm. 

SYSTEMIC MISCONDUCT CONTEXT 

(Not an appeal; pattern evidence) 

This complaint is not an appeal and does not ask the JQC to review, reverse, or 

modify any ruling.  

It is submitted to report judicial misconduct and administrative nonfeasance 

that cumulatively produced a systemic denial of any meaningful forum to adjudicate 

threshold issues—particularly jurisdiction, due process, and child safety—despite 

repeated emergency filings and documented notice of irreparable harm. 

As applicable to the respondent judge, the pattern includes: 

• retaliation after protected filings; 

• mischaracterization of pleadings; 

• refusal to issue required written determinations; 

• delay or non-adjudication of emergency matters; and 

Page 8 of 14 

• procedural actions that functionally insulated void or ultra vires orders from 

review. 

This pattern is independently verifiable from the court record and is submitted solely for 

judicial-conduct review. 

RELATED / OVERLAPPING CASES 

Primary Case (Underlying Family / Enforcement Case) 

Case Name: 

Kathryn Stillwell Dressler v. Paul Gawor 

Case Number (include all letters and numbers): 

FMCE22-006123 

(State Reporting No. 062022DR006123AXXXCE) 

County: 

Broward County, Florida 

**Related Domestic Violence Injunction Cases 

(Same Respondent; Same Judicial Authority / Notice Context)** 

Case Name: 

Page 9 of 14 

Kathryn Stillwell Dressler v. Paul Gawor 

Case Number: 

DVCE22003026 

(State Reporting No. 062022DR003026AXDVCE) 

County: 

Broward County, Florida 

Case Name: 

Kathryn Stillwell Dressler, on behalf of minor child v. Paul Gawor 

Case Number: 

DVCE22003027 

(State Reporting No. 062022DR003027AXDVCE) 

County: 

Broward County, Florida 

**Related Criminal Case 

(Underlying Domestic Violence Arrest; Notice and Safety Anchor)** 

Case Name: 

State of Florida v. Paul Gawor 

Case Number: 

Page 10 of 14 

BSO Case / OCA No. 11-2205-000513 

(Domestic Battery – Broward County Sheriff’s Office; May 2–3, 2022) 

County: 

Broward County, Florida 

Additional Related Proceedings (Pattern / Notice / Context) 

A. Primary State Trial Court Case 

• Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida 

• Case No.: FMCE22-006123 

• Dressler v. Gawor 

B. Federal Proceedings 

1. U.S. District Court – Southern District of Georgia (Brunswick Division) 

• Dressler v. State of Florida et al. 

• Case No.: 2:25-cv-00154-LGW-BWC 

• Filed: December 10, 2025 

• Status: OPEN / ACTIVE 

• Emergency civil rights / jurisdictional relief requested 

2. U.S. District Court – Southern District of Florida 

Page 11 of 14 

• Dressler v. Gawor et al. 

• Case No.: 0:25-cv-61554-PMH 

• Filed: August 1, 2025 

• Status: Dismissed without prejudice 

• Emergency habeas / TRO / ADA relief requested 

C. Florida Appellate Proceedings 

• Florida Third District Court of Appeal – Case No.: 3D2025-2251 

• Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal – Case No.: 4D2025-3401 

• Florida Supreme Court – Case No.: SC2025-1947 

**D. Miami-Dade Civil Personal Injury Cases 

(Pattern / Notice; Same Respondent)** 

• 2025-013941-CA-01 — Kathryn Dressler et al. v. Paul Gawor (OPEN) 

• 2025-014431-CA-01 — Patricia Dressler et al. v. Paul Gawor (OPEN) 

Page 12 of 14 

E. Georgia Enforcement / Jurisdiction Proceedings (Context for 

Systemic Misconduct and Notice) 

The following Georgia proceedings are included solely to document jurisdictional 

posture, notice, and the interstate enforcement context in which the Florida judicial 

officers acted.  

These matters are not appealed here, and are referenced only to demonstrate 

notice, procedural posture, and the consequences of Florida courts’ refusal to issue 

written UCCJEA determinations. 

Superior Court of McIntosh County, Georgia (PeachCourt) 

Case Name: 

Paul Gawor v. Kathryn S. Dressler 

Case Number: 

SUV2025000065 

Court: 

Superior Court of McIntosh County, Georgia 

Key Procedural Events (as reflected on the PeachCourt docket): 

• May 27, 2025: Ex Parte Emergency Petition for Immediate Enforcement of a 

Foreign Judgment of Custody filed by Paul Gawor. 

Page 13 of 14 

• May 27, 2025: Order Granting Complaint for Expedited Enforcement of a Foreign 

Judgment of Emergency Custody entered the same day. 

• June 24, 2025: Final Order entered. 

• January 15, 2026: Disposition entered. 

These Georgia proceedings arose directly from the Florida pick-up orders 

issued on May 22 and May 27, 2025, and relied on the absence of any written Florida 

UCCJEA jurisdictional determination. 

The Georgia court’s involvement underscores the interstate consequences of the 

Florida judges’ actions and omissions, including: 

• enforcement of custody orders without prior UCCJEA findings; 

• reliance on Florida orders that were challenged as void for lack of jurisdiction, 

notice, and hearing; and 

• continued separation of the minor child despite unresolved jurisdictional disputes 

and documented safety concerns. 

These Georgia proceedings further demonstrate that Florida judicial officers were on 

notice that their actions had immediate interstate effect, yet continued to: 

• decline to issue written UCCJEA determinations; 

• refuse to stay or vacate enforcement orders; and 

• allow reliance on those orders by courts in another state. 

Page 14 of 14 

This section is included for record context and notice only, and to illustrate how 

the failure to address threshold jurisdictional and safety issues in Florida contributed to 

a broader pattern of procedural harm extending beyond the issuing court.