In a highly contentious family proceeding involving an adult child with significant disabilities, the court addressed whether the motion judge should recuse himself for reasonable apprehension of bias and whether he should assume case management of the file.
Applying the governing bias authorities, the court held that vague complaints about comments in procedural teleconferences and court appearances did not overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.
The court further held that it had inherent jurisdiction, reinforced by the Family Law Rules, to appoint itself as Case Management Judge in order to control an increasingly unmanageable and disproportionately expensive process.
The recusal request was dismissed, case management was imposed, and procedural directions were issued respecting outstanding issues, costs submissions, and interim restrictions on the child's travel documents.
