|
In this unusual and striking appeal of a termination
of parental rights decision, the sole issue was whether the trial
judge's continuing to preside at trial created an appearance of
impropriety, thereby requiring his recusal. The appellate court
concluded that it did, and reversed the judgment of the trial court.
On the first day of a two day termination of
parental rights trial, the court reprimanded the father for his
"disruptive" behavior in the court room and engaged in a lengthy
colloquy with the respondent that included the following exchange:
''[The Respondent]: I've been very, no, I've
been very concerned for a long time.
''The Court: Well, it doesn't look like it from
what I've seen here. Please continue. And you can't blame me for
taking that . . . opinion.
''[The Respondent]: Well, Your Honor . . . .
''The Court: Somebody who cared would not stick
himself in jail and stay there so he couldn't see his child. Now,
I don't want to get into it any further. Move on. [I'm] [s]ick of
these people who come in and say, 'Oh, I really care. I haven't
seen him in nine years, Judge, but I really care.' Check with your
attorney see what he has done in the last nine years with his family
and how he has worked. Check with anybody here. They tended to their
families. Move on.''
At the conclusion of the case, the father's
counsel moved for a new trial on the grounds that the court was
not impartial. Said motion was denied on the grounds that the father
had "opened the door" for the dialogue by addressing the court directly.
The court ultimately granted the termination petition. On appeal,
the father contended that the court violated the principles of impartiality
and fairness set forth in canon 3(c) (1) of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and a new trial should have been granted.
The appellate court determined that "[a]n objective
observer reasonably could believe that the court's comments suggested
that the respondent's motives were disingenuous and that the court
characterized the respondent as a member of a group of litigants
who insincerely assert an interest in court. The respondent's credibility
was implicitly questioned before he testified. The court engaged
in conduct that would lead a reasonable person to question the court's
impartiality. Accordingly, the court abused its discretion by failing
to grant the respondent's motion for a new trial."
|
