Judge’s Husband’s Public Views Not Grounds for Recusal

Tennessee case summary on judicial recusal.

Nicole Marie Neuman v. Paul Phillips

Judge’s Husband’s Public Views Not Grounds for Recusal

The mother in this Williamson County, Tennessee, case petitioned to modify custody arrangements.  This was based upon her allegation that the husband had established a pattern of being difficult with her and unnecessarily contradicting her on educational decisions.  Subsequently, the father moved to hold her in contempt for enrolling the child in online classes without consulting with him, even though he had ultimate decision-making authority on educational issues.  The father asked for the case to go to hearing, but the mother stated that she needed to amend her petition.  The mother argued that grounds for change included the father’s attitude toward COVID-19, and that  “anyone not living under a rock has to know that the delta variant of COVID-19 is raging like wildfire in Middle Tennessee.”

The case was assigned to Judge Deanna B. Johnson, whose husband was the majority leader of the state senate, and had been a vocal proponent that children should be attending school in person, with no requirement to wear masks.  She moved to have Judge Johnson recused, on the grounds that there was good reason to believe that she shared her husband’s view.

Judge Johnson denied the motion, and pointed out that there was no evidence that she had expressed any opinion on the subject.  The Judge also noted that the motion was filed for an improper purpose and in bad faith.

The mother then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.  She first argued that the trial court should have ordered a hearing.  But the appeals court noted that a hearing is not required.  In fact, a requirement for a hearing would run counter to the principle that such motions must be decided quickly.

The wife then argued that the evidence established a reasonable basis to believe the judge shared her husband’s opinion.  At the very least, she argued that the husband’s high-profile views, as evidenced by a newspaper editorial he penned, could sway the judge’s view of the case.

But the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that the opinions of her spouse was irrelevant to the proceedings.  The issue in the divorce case was not the merits of in-person school or whether masks should be required for students.  The issue was whether the parenting plan should be modified, or the mother held in contempt.  The views of the judge’s husband were not relevant to those issues.

The wife also argued that the finding of an improper purpose for the motion reflected an independent grounds for recusal.  While there was no factual basis shown for this finding, the appeals court held that this language did not warrant reversal.

For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the recusal motion, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

No. M2021–01162-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 21,  2021).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.

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