Judge Need Not Recuse in 100 Yr Old Mom Order of Protection Case

Tennessee case summary on orders of protection and recusal.

This was an order of protection action brought by a 100 year old plaintiff against her son, requesting that the son have no contact with her. The first judge assigned to the case made various pretrial rulings which were adverse to the son. For example, the son wanted to conduct a deposition of the mother. The court allowed the deposition, but insisted that it take place in the courtroom with the judge present. Eventually, the son made a motion to recuse the judge, who granted the motion, and the case was assigned to a different judge. The court asked the second judge to reverse the earlier orders, and this motion was denied. The son then made a motion to recuse the second judge, and this motion was denied. The son then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first noted that a judge should recuse himself if a person of ordinary prudence would find a reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s impartiality. It also noted that not every bias or partiality merits recusal Here, the son alleged that the bias was based on the discovery order, and the second judge’s alleged desire to protect the second judge.

The appeals court first looked at the discovery orders and found that there was no abuse of discretion in the first judge’s rulings.

The son also alleged that the second judge was concerned with protecting the first judge. But the appeals court noted that the son had come forward with absolutely no evidence supporting this theory.

Finally, the son pointed to some allegedly hostile language in the orders. But the court pointed out that mere adverse rulings were insufficient, and that no reasonable person would interpret the statements to conclude that the judge had prematurely decided the case.

For these reasons, the appeals court affirmed the lower court, assessed costs against the son, and admonished him that he would be better served by addressing the merits of the case instead of challenging the ethics of the judges hearing the case.

No. M2015-01280-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see Domestic Violence in Tennessee.