holding the father in contempt, which is the subject of this Court’s review. As a general rule, once an order disqualifying a judge is entered, the judge is prohibited from any further participation in the case. See Lake v. Lake, 14 So.3d 284, 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (reversing an order issued by the same judge who issued the instant order after the judge had recused himself, finding that “[o]nce the trial judge recused himself, he had no further authority to enter orders”); Colla-do v. Collado, 858 So.2d 1255, 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (granting petition for writ of prohibition and quashing the order under review; finding that because the order was entered after the trial judge had been disqualified, it was void); State ex rel. Cobb v. Bailey, 349 So.2d 849, 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (<HOLDING>). While disqualification of the judge generally
holding that the judges recusal order effectively deprived that judge of authority to preside over the contempt proceedings holding that where criminal contempt charged has in it the element of personal criticism or attack upon the judge and where delay would not be impracticable a different judge should preside over the criminal contempt trial holding that an order granted simultaneously with a recusal order is void unless the trial judges written order  was but a reduction of an earlier adverse oral ruling made prior to the recusal holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court holding recusal not required