Independent Judgment

The Tennessee Court of Appeals vacated a judgment in a custudy case due to concern that the since-retired judge essentially delegated the drafting task to the father’s attorney

In this child custody case, the record transmitted on appeal creates significant doubt as to whether the trial court’s final order represents its own deliberations and decision. Due to this concern, and because the judge who previously presided over this case has since retired from the bench, we vacate the appealed judgment and remand for a new trial.

The court

While asking parties to prepare orders is not, in and of itself, necessarily problematic, see id., here the record does not reflect that the trial court provided any independent decision for Father’s order. Moreover, the record indicates that the trial court later signed and entered Father’s order without any modification. While our review of the record reflects that the trial judge instructed Father’s attorney to include a finding of “codependency” and to draft the order according to the relevant statutory factors, no other guidance or instructions were given. Moreover, the record reflects that the trial judge did not render oral rulings as to the findings it wished to make regarding the referenced statutory factors, nor did it actually even provide a specific ruling as to which party should be designated as the primary residential parent. Insofar as the transcript admits, the judicial task of providing a basis for the court’s ruling (itself then technically unpronounced) was essentially delegated to Father’s attorney.

The court cited to transcript that underscored its concerns. (Mike Frisch)