Divorce proceedings are often highly emotionally charged affairs. And it is not unusual for the parties to become frustrated–even angry–with the process. But it should go without saying that threatening or harassing the judge or other court officials is not the proper way to deal with these frustrations. Nor should you expect such actions to help you obtain a favorable outcome.

Judge Declines to Recuse Herself Following Litigant’s “Defamatory” Social Media Posts

A recent unreported decision from the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Beasley v. Beasley, offers a cautionary tale on this point. This case involved a couple that married in 2011. The wife filed for divorce seven years later, in 2018. Between 2019 and 2021 a circuit court administrative judge presided over the case and ruled on a number of disputed issues between the parties.

The husband, apparently dissatisfied with some of these rulings, took to the Internet to express his dissatisfaction through a series of social media posts. The content of these posts concerned the judge enough to file a police report. She told the police that the husband had been making “false, malicious, and defamatory comments” about her online. The husband had also been using Public Information Act requests to obtain information “about several judicial officials, herself included.” The judge did not ask the police to contact the husband or take any direct action; she said she filed the report simply to create a public record “in the event he becomes increasingly unstable.”

Sometime later, the husband filed a motion requesting the judge’s recusal based on allegations of “bias and partiality” against him. The husband also threatened to file a grievance with the Maryland Commission for Judicial Disabilities. The judge declined to recuse herself. Eventually, however, a new judge was assigned to the case and proceeded to issue a final judgment in the divorce case.

The husband subsequently appealed. He argued that the original judge’s failure to recuse herself–based on the fact she filed a police report against him–tainted every issue she decided in the case. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed. Judges have wide discretion to decide when to recuse themselves from a case. Here, the appellate court said the trial judge did not abuse that discretion. Filing a police report did not indicate “any partiality” by the judge. Rather, she had “legitimate concerns regarding Husband’s behavior, namely his use of social media to post inappropriate content aimed at her.”

And even assuming recusal would have been appropriate, the appellate court said the fact a new judge took over the case–which continued for another 16 months–was sufficient to alleviate the husband’s concerns, particularly since he offered no reason to suggest that the new judge was biased. Ultimately, the Court of Special Appeals found the husband’s arguments to be “meritless.”

Contact Waldorf Divorce Attorney Robert Castro Today

This article has been provided by the Law Office of Robert Castro. For more information or questions contact our office to speak to an experienced lawyer at (301) 870-1200.

Source:

https://www.courts.state.md.us/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/0998s21.pdf