Opinion ID: 2550832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Recusal of Judges Williamson and Miller

Text: Upon remand, we further sua sponte order the recusal of Judges Williamson and Miller from any further proceedings involving L.J.B. regardless of who the particular parties are ( e.g., Mother, Father, Stepmother, Grandmother, uncles, aunts, half-siblings, etc.). As reflected in Part I, infra, these legal proceedings began several years ago as an extremely contentious custody battle in front of Judge Williamson. In our view, Judge Williamson's apparent antagonism towards Mother is evident from the record. Indeed, our exhaustive review of the proceedings reveals, at a minimum, the following incidents attributable to Judge Williamson: (1) Permitted and entertained ex parte communications from Father regarding L.J.B. and Mother; see N.T., Docket No. 802-02 ( C.L.F. v. S.M.B., Father's Petition for Modification of Custody), Nov. 24, 2004 at 3; (2) Ignored repeated warnings from CYS regarding the falsity of Father and Stepmother's allegations of sexual abuse by Mother; see generally C.L.F. v. S.M.B., Proceedings of Nov. 24, 2004 and February/March 2006; (3) Without provocation criticized Mother's conduct over the past ten years, when at that point L.J.B. was only five years old; N.T., Docket No. 818-07 ( B.J.B. v. S.M.B., Petition for Visitation by Grandmother, B.J.B.), Jul. 11, 2007 at 9; (4) Stated that Mother dumped L.J.B. on Father; id. at 10; while [running] off and abandon[ing L.J.B.]; id. at 11; (5) Stated that information placed on an advocacy website by Mother (and/or Grandmother) was garbage ... and if you continue to publish this kind of stuff, you'll never see this child again.; id. at 10-11; (6) Advised Father to have Mother jailed the next time you find her in Clinton County, due to Mother's alleged failure to pay child support; id. at 8; [14] (7) Advocated to Father that he seek termination of Mother's parental rights; id. at 11; [15] and (8) Failed to enforce orders barring further pelvic examinations of L.J.B. against Father/Stepmother. see e.g. N.T., Docket No. 21-2008 ( In re Adoption of L.J.B., Termination Trial), Apr. 30, 2009 at 143, 149. [16] Generally, a party must seek to have a judge recused from a case, by first bringing the petition for recusal before that jurist, thus enabling the judge to evaluate the reasons for recusal firsthand. See Commonwealth v. Whitmore, 590 Pa. 376, 912 A.2d 827, 833 (2006). This is, in part, to allow the requested judge to state his or her reasons for granting or denying the motion and, as the allegedly biased party, to develop a record on the matter. Id. The final determination by that judge may then be reviewed by an appellate court, but may only be reversed upon an abuse of discretion. Id. Nevertheless, in our explicit constitutional authority to supervise the courts of the Commonwealth, it is not outside this Court's power to sua sponte order the removal of a jurist from a case. Id. at 832 (holding that the Superior Court may not order the sua sponte removal of a judge from a case; such a question falls within the supervisory and administrative powers over all of the courts granted to this Court by the Pennsylvania Constitution, Article V, Section 10(c).). In that capacity, we will order the resolution of a legal dispute before a new judge on the mere appearance of impropriety, which may be shown where there are factors or circumstances that may reasonably question the jurist's impartiality in the matter. Joseph v. Scranton Times, 604 Pa. 677, 987 A.2d 633, 634 (2009) ( per curiam ). In our opinion, the facts as related herein reflect, at best, an appearance of impropriety, by Judge Williamson against Mother. [17] Upon remand, this case is going to continue either as a termination or custody proceeding. The custody proceedings involving L.J.B. have been handled by Judge Williamson in the past, and there is no indication that, absent intervention from this Court, his involvement would cease. Accordingly, in our respectful view, protection of this otherwise helpless child caught in the maelstrom precipitated by these many adults requires reassignment of all proceedings involving L.J.B. to a judge other than Judge Williamson. Normally, such appointment of a new judge to preside upon remand could fall to another judge within the same judicial district. However, as noted, Judge Williamson and Judge Miller are the only two commissioned judges of Clinton County. Further, the record and transcript of the custody proceedings before Judge Williamson were admitted into evidence during the termination trial before Judge Miller, who, in examining the totality of the circumstances of Mother's abandonment, apparently did not consider the potential appearance of impropriety by Judge Williamson against Mother. Indeed, without addressing her allegations of bias, Judge Miller faulted Mother for wanting to wait until Judge Williamson's retirement before again availing herself of the Pennsylvania court system. See In re Adoption of L.J.B., No. 21-2008, Termination Tr. Slip Op at 12 (May 27, 2009); see also Super. Ct. Mem. Op. at 12. Given what has to be a collaborative relationship and considering both of their involvements in this case, we believe justice, and, as importantly, the interests of L.J.B., who has suffered enough for a lifetime, would best be served by a fresh pair of eyes and a fresh perspective. Thus, we order that all additional proceedings [18] involving these parties be entertained by a new jurist from a different judicial district, as coordinated by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. [19]