Opinion ID: 1060351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Removal of the Trial Judge

Text: Ms. Keisling argues that the trial judge should be removed from the case. We do not agree. [O]ne of the core tenets of our jurisprudence is that litigants have a right to have their cases heard by fair and impartial judges. Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn.2001). However, [a]dverse rulings by a trial court are not usually sufficient grounds to establish bias. Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810, 821 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994). Throughout these protracted proceedings, the trial court has conducted the proceedings in an evenhanded manner and has provided the parties with an impartial forum in which to be heard. It is imperative, however, that a party from whom custody will be removed, even temporarily, be provided with notice sufficient to meet due process requirements. Although we find notice to have been lacking in this case, none of the trial court's actions place the court's impartiality at issue. See id. at 821 (stating that [r]ulings of a trial judge, even if erroneous, numerous and continuous, do not, without more, justify disqualification.). Therefore, we decline to direct that proceedings on remand be conducted before a different trial judge.