No Judicial Recused Merely for Being “Tight” With Court docket Worker

Tennessee case abstract on judicial recusal in divorce.

Molly Leann Green v. Michael Wayne Green

She was required to come back ahead with proof that might immediate an affordable particular person to query the choose’s impartiality.

The husband and spouse on this Fentress County, Tennessee, case had been divorced in 2014, and the case was heard by Choose Todd Burnett.  They subsequently reconciled and had one other little one, however didn’t remarry.  The daddy introduced a petition to ascertain parentage, and that order was additionally entered within the Juvenile Court docket by Choose Burnett.

Choose Burnett’s assistant was beforehand married to the husband’s father, however they divorced about eighteen years earlier.

In 2021, the mom filed a petition concerning parenting time.  Choose Burnett recused himself on the mom’s request, and the case was heard by Choose Daryl A. Colson.

On the listening to, the mom noticed Choose Burnett’s assistant sitting close to Choose Colson and speaking to him.  Regardless that she felt apprehensive, she took no motion to recuse Choose Colson at the moment.

Choose Colson continued to preside over the case, however the next yr, the spouse had a dialog with an area legal professional who knowledgeable her that Choose Colson was “tight” with the opposite choose’s assistant.  She additionally realized of a Fb put up during which Choose Colson had endorsed Choose Burnett.  Based mostly upon this data, she filed a movement to recuse Choose Colson.

Choose Colson denied the movement on the grounds that his endorsement of the health of one other choose had no bearing on the case.  He discovered the allegation that he was “tight” with the assistant to be unfounded.

The spouse then appealed to the Tennessee Court docket of Appeals, which famous that it reviewed such instances de novo, with no presumption of correctness.  However the occasion looking for recusal bears the burden of proof.  The mom argued that the assistant’s standing close to the choose was inappropriate.

The appeals courtroom identified that this conduct occurred greater than a yr earlier than the spouse filed her recusal petition.  It discovered that this delay meant that the spouse didn’t promptly convey the problem to the choose’s consideration.  It additionally identified {that a} courtroom worker standing close to or speaking to a choose is hardly inappropriate.

As to the allegation of the Choose being “tight” with the worker, the appeals courtroom acknowledged that it was unclear what this meant.  The spouse had the burden of proof on this subject, and he or she was required to come back ahead with proof that might immediate an affordable particular person to query the choose’s impartiality.

The appeals courtroom additionally identified that the guidelines of judicial conduct clearly enable judges to endorse one other choose, so the Fb put up was a non-issue.

For that reason, the Court docket of Appeals affirmed.  The husband requested the courtroom to seek out that the enchantment was frivolous, but it surely declined to take action.  Nevertheless, it did tax the prices of enchantment in opposition to the spouse.

No. E2022-01518-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022).

See authentic opinion for precise language.  Authorized citations omitted.

To study extra, see The Tennessee Divorce Course of: How Divorces Work Begin to End.