Camelot, Harvey (Imaginary Rabbit And Imaginary Conflict) And Recusal

A judge’s participation with a mother in community theater did not justify her disqualification from divorce proceedings, according to a recent decision affirming the denial of recusal by the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

The trial judge’s ruling

About four weeks after the hearing, Father complained in mid-January 2023 to the Board of Judicial Conduct (“the Board”). The complaint was dismissed by the Board. Father’s present motion echoes his complaint(s) to the Board, including the assertion of “closeness” between Mother and the undersigned based upon seven years ago being in a community theater show “Camelot” in late September — early October 2016 and a backstage dressing room photo from the show posted contemporaneously seven years ago by a third party who “tagged” Mother and the undersigned.

Father now additionally (mis)relies upon an exhibit to his motion showing a cast announcement for a second . . . community show, “Harvey”. Father’s exhibit omits the cast announcement was publicized on February 21, 2019 for the show dates of May 10-26, 2019. However, Father and his counsel appear to be uninformed that the undersigned did not actually perform in “Harvey”. The theater’s webpage documents the same[.]

The court here

Adverse rulings and a litigant’s resultant unhappiness with the rulings, even if the Trial Court’s rulings are erroneous and numerous, are insufficient, without more, to justify recusal. Additionally, Father has failed to demonstrate that Judge Cook has a close relationship with Mother such that would create an appearance of bias. Furthermore, the fact that Father filed a judicial complaint with the Board of the Judiciary against Judge Cook without any additional evidence of actual bias or partiality is insufficient to demonstrate an appearance of impropriety or bias against Father. 

(Mike Frisch)