No Judicial Recusal for Saying Mom Hurt Kid’s Relationship w/ Dad
No Judicial Recusal for Saying Mom Hurt Kid’s Relationship w/ Dad
Tennessee case summary on judicial recusal.
Lee Richard Slotnik v. Shani Marie Slotnik
The parents in this Tennessee, case were divorced in Illinois, after which both moved to Tennessee. In 2017, the father filed a petition in Davidson County to enroll the divorce decree, and he also requested a modification of the visitation. The Court in Davidson County named him the primary residential parent, and reduced the mother’s parenting time.
By 2018, the parents were able to relax the parenting plan, and they were essentially sharing parenting time. But the father’s relationship with the child deteriorated, and the case was eventually transferred to Williamson County.
The mother made a motion to modify the parenting plan, and the father made a counter-petition. The case was heard by Judge James G. Martin III, and there were various interim orders and hearings in the case, the effect of which was to reduce the mother’s parenting time.
The mother made a motion to recuse Judge Martin. She argued that there was an appearance of bias, or the appearance that the results had been predetermined. She based this on statements by the judge to the effect that the child was shunning and bullying the father. The judge at one point commented that the mother was the “only variable that’s been added to the mix” prior to the deteriorating relationship with the father. The trial court found no basis for recusal, and the mother brought an immediate appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
The appeals court examined the statements by the judge, but the trial judge had stated that he “had a lot of evidence” for his conclusions.
The Court of Appeals examined the trial record and concluded that there was no evidence of bias, or even the appearance of bias. Statements made by the trial court were based upon the evidence. The appeals court noted that in one case, the trial judge may have overstated to make a point, but in this context, the statement did not call into question the judge’s impartiality.
Similarly, the trial court’s remarks that children should have a relationship with both parents were not improper, since they did not reveal a high degree of favoritism.
Overall, the appeals court found no reason to reverse the trial court’s order, and therefore remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
No. M2022–00645-COA-T10B-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 7, 2022).
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
To learn more, see The Tennessee Divorce Process: How Divorces Work Start to Finish.
