No Recusal for Judge Who Knew Wife from Theater
Public confidence requires not only actual impartiality, but the perception of impartiality.
Tennessee case summary: judicial recusal denied.
Arthur A. Allen v. Heather S. Allen
This custody matter was scheduled for a hearing in Washington County, Tennessee. It was to be heard by Chancellor John C. Rambo, but due to a scheduling conflict, the case was instead heard before Judge Suzanne Cook.
At the start of the hearing, Judge Cook notified the parties that she had met the mother while participating in “theater things.” She noted, however, that she had never represented the mother, and had no knowledge of what had happened in the case. She told them that they had the right to discuss whether she should recuse herself, and the parties and their attorneys discussed whether she should be recused, outside of the judge’s presence. Neither party requested recusal, and the hearing proceeded before Judge Cook, who made a ruling, and neither party appealed.
The father then filed a complaint against Judge Cook with the Tennessee Board of the Judiciary. That complaint was dismissed. A couple of months later, the mother made a motion for the father to be held in criminal contempt for interference with her parenting time. The father also filed a petition to modify the parenting plan, and motions for contempt against the mother. Upon learning that the hearing was assigned to Judge Cook, the father filed a motion to recuse. This was based on the judge’s alleged “closeness” to the mother. The father argued that he had been unaware of this closeness prior to the first hearing. He introduced evidence that the mother and judge had appeared together as cast members in “Camelot” and “Harvey,” including a photo of the two standing next to each other in a photo. He also introduced screenshots of social media showing that the two followed each other. He also alleged that the mother had consulted with the judge, and that the judge had spoken to at least one of the children.
The trial court denied the motion. Among other things, the judge noted that she had never appeared in “Harvey” because her son was hospitalized shortly after the initial announcement. The motion was also denied for various procedural reasons, and the father filed a second motion to cure the procedural defects. That motion was also denied, and the father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court began by noting that in hearing recusal cases, there is a de novo standard of review, with a presumption of correctness. It then pointed out that the father did not object initially, but did so only after an unfavorable ruling at the first hearing. It also noted that the play in which the mother and judge had appeared (“Camelot”) had taken place seven years earlier.
It did note that public confidence requires not only actual impartiality, but the perception of impartiality. On the other hand, a judge should recuse himself or herself only if it is truly called for under the circumstances.
In this case, after examining all of the circumstances, the appeals court held that recusal was not necessary. Therefore, it affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
No. E2023-01660-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2023).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
