Adverse rulings are not grounds for judicial recusal.

Tennessee case summary on judicial recusal in divorce.

Sarah Edge Woodward v. Geoffrey Hamilton Woodward

Complaints of impartiality must occur immediately after the prejudicial event.

The mother and father in this Davidson County, Tennessee, case were married in 2001 and had three children.  In 2021, the mother filed for divorce, alleging irreconcilable differences and inappropriate marital conduct.

At one of the first hearings in the case, trial Judge Phillip R. Robinson made some comments.  He first stated that if the parties wanted to be alienated from their children, they they should just disobey his orders.  He also stated that he would put them in jail if they disobeyed orders.  After the hearing, he stated that he was very disheartened by the case, but expressed hope that “tomorrow is going to start a new day in this case.”  He then awarded the mother the exclusive possession of the marital home.

Shortly thereafter, the mother filed a motion for parenting time, in which she alleged that the father was not complying with prior court orders.  A forensic evaluator was also appointed.

After hearing, the mother was awarded sole temporary custody.  The court found that the father had engaged in a pattern of emotional abuse by allowing the children to berate her.  The father’s conduct was cut off, and he was ordered to attend counseling.

After a long hearing, the trial court admonished the father not to discuss the case with his son.  The judge warned him that i9f he heard of it happening, he would “react swiftly and it will be painful.”  Ultimately, however, the father was granted equal parenting time.  But at one hearing, the son was warned to “watch your mouth with me.”  And the father was later warned, “I can put him in jail, and that’s okay.”

A contempt hearing was later held, and the father then filed a motion for recusal of Judge Robinson, citing an appearance of bias.  The trial court denied that motion, and the father brought an interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The appeals court first quoted the relevant rules, which call for impartiality on the part of a judge.  But it also pointed out that mere adverse rulings are not grounds for recusal.

The trial court, in denying the motion, had ruled that complaints of impartiality must occur immediately after the prejudicial event.  In other words, a litigant can’t strategically wait to object.  In this case, the appellate court agreed that the father had done exactly that.  Therefore, it affirmed this portion of the lower court’s ruling.

The father also argued that the lower court had failed to apply the objective standard required under Tennessee law for recusal motions.  But the appeals court pointed out that when the bias is alleged to arise from matters that arise during the litigation, the litigant has a higher burden.  The appeals court analyzed the statements of the trial judge and concluded that there was no basis to recuse under this higher standard.

The father also objected to the fact that the trial court had adopted the mother’s arguments into its ruling, and that this created an appearance of bias.  But the appeals court held that this was insufficient grounds for recusal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, and assessed the costs of appeal against the father.

No. M2023-01298-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2023).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.