WPCM  0~V 0x 0kL 0k 0" 0~ 0: 0 0 0 0  0 01 0C 0V( 0~ 0M 0 0 0X 0 0 0 0KUB %0 0z6 0 1 0 r 0= 0F 0P 1V 0 0O$#Es# 0}u# 0x# 0j$ 0j$ 0ea% 0W% 0W& 0t& 0j& 0b' 0( 0( 0w) 0X* 0L+ 0S, 0-m- 0@. 0/ 00 0#1 01 0^2 03 03 0l4 04 15?6nO6 046 B074M7 0a7 7 0J9 0@R9 0J9 D39 0T: 0^c: 0h: 0r); 0|; 0< 0< 1u-=U,= 0d=U,2>U6^>B)>DC> AM?U*M?Iw?@Bv~DvF AOK1L 0PL 0DGM D/M BMV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..8  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS   1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS #    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !"($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)x?t2PleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading Paper % z &(  &XXXXX6G''*d66G''*d6HH1HH2HH3HH4HH5HH6HH7HH8HH910111213141516171819202122232425262728  .+('2$ FT!   p4Heading 2Underlined Heading Flush LeftV4Heading 1Centered Heading@..  b* 8Bullet ListIndented Bullet List0..0` ..` B& $1Document Style0..8` ..` B $2Document Style.. . B $3Document Style8..B $4Document Style0..B-$5Document Style 23  Ԁ   B& $6Document Style0..0` ..` dS $7Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..23  Ԁ..0..df $8Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..` 23  Ԁ..0` ..` B=$9Document Style.. 23  Ԁ   fy &10Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. 23  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. f &11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..23  Ԁ .. 0..f &12Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h23  Ԁ..0h..hf &13Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..23  Ԁh..h0..f &14Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....23  Ԁ..0..f &15Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..p23  Ԁ..0p..pDV!&16Document Style  @..  23  Ԁ     Ԉ X/&17Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&18Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X-(&19Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X*$&20Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X)$&21Technical Document Style 23  Ԁ   .. X83&22Technical Document Style  23  Ԁ     .. X/&23Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ. X/&24Technical Document Style.. 23  Ԁ.   CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)3|xw<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@( T$   dc`$(G.2 $ FT!   dXX     0  SWANNSIMPSONSWANSONHIGGINSO'CONNORJuliaWahlerVeyNordquistEdwinDantzlerTenn.Cr.App($   0  ("$    2 0Indent123  GGGG'dxd2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ORSTUVWX ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 ddddd7Border 1ddNeC << G<  9p`(Arial ? F!  #d#Zc  "  gg   YYY FILEDgX January18,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.gAppellateCourtClerk   F!#d#Zc  I$c         ThecoverpageofSpeakingofChildren,apublicationofChildren'sPsychologicalServicesofKnoxville,Inc.,confirmedthatDr.WahlerwasassociatedwiththeorganizationandlistedtheTrialJudgeasamemberoftheorganization'sadvisoryboard.  F!#d#Zc  I$c         (b)EffectofError.Afinaljudgmentfromwhichreliefisavailableandotherwiseappropriateshallnotbesetasideunless,consideringthewholerecord,errorinvolvingasubstantialrightmoreprobablythannotaffectedthejudgmentorwouldresultinprejudicetothejudicialprocess.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco NC<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3$ FT!   ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd F! . Z&bbXd&#bbXd#c    7oXXdXXd7\RA'\ `   Lfhe;+'h|`  `L@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE       @ EASTERNSECTIONJULIAWILSONNIELSEN@ ) KNOXCOUNTY(NowSexton)@ ) 03A019506CV00186@ ) PlaintiffAppellant@ )@ )@ ) v.@ ) HON.BILLSWANN,JUDGE        @ ) @ )JANPETERNIELSEN@ )@ )  DefendantAppellee @ ) VACATEDANDREMANDED ROBERTR.SIMPSONandSARAHSWANSONHIGGINSOFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLANTJOHNT.O'CONNOROFKNOXVILLEFORAPPELLEE@ @ @ @  @      OPINION         Goddard,P.J.  TheAppellant,JuliaWilsonNielsen(nowSexton)appealsajudgmentoftheKnoxCountyCircuitCourtamendingacustodialagreementsoastoawardsolecustodyofhersontoherformerhusband,JanPeterNielsen,theAppellee.Specifically,theAppellantassertsthattheTrialJudgeerredbyfailingtogranthermotionforcontinuancebyexcludingbothpartiesfromthecourtroomduringthetestimonyoftheCourt'sexpert,byenjoiningbothpartiesfromreadingtheexpert'sreport,andbyfailingtorecusehimselfduetohisrelationshipwiththeprofessionalgroupoftheexpertappointedbytheCourt.    ThepartiesweredivorcedonJune20,1989,andagreedtoexercisejointcustodyovertheirtwominorchildren.ThechildrenweretospendninedayswiththeAppellantandfivedayswiththeAppellee.Thisagreementquicklyprovedunsatisfactoryandbothpartiespetitionedtomodifythecustodialagreement.TheAppelleethereafteragreedtograntsolecustodytotheAppellant,butlaterfiledapetitionforsolecustodyhimselfandamotionforapsychologicalevaluation.  OnOctober2,1992,theTrialJudgeissuedanorderforapsychologicalevaluationandreferredthepartiesto"Drs.RobertWahlerand/orVeyNordquistand/orEdwinRogers"withDr.Nordquistultimatelyperformingtheevaluation.Theorderalsoprovidedthatthereportresultingfromthepsychologicalevaluationwould"beheldinsuchconfidentialitybythecounselastheexpertmayrecommendforthewelfareofthechildrenandtheparties."ThecustodyissuesweretobetriedonNovember9,1992.  ThereportwasmadeavailabletocounselatmiddayonNovember7,1992.OnthemorningofNovember9,1992,counselfortheAppellantmovedtheCourtforacontinuance.TheAppellantarguesthatbecausethereportwasdeliveredlatehercounselwereunabletodevelopcountervailingevidence,thattheyhadnotimetodeposeDr.Nordquist,ortoconsultanotherpsychologistregardingDr.Nordquist'smethodsoftesting.  CounselfortheAppellantalsoassertthattheseproblemswerecompoundedbecausetheywereunabletohavethebenefitoftheAppellant'sinput.TherequestwasdeniedafterargumentofcounselandtestimonyofDr.Nordquist.TheTrialJudgefoundthatthetwodaydelaywasinsignificantinviewofthefacttherewouldhavebeenonlyfourdaystoreviewthereporthaditbeensubmittedontime.Further,theTrialJudgegavetheAppellanttherighttoreopenthecrossexaminationofDr.Nordquistaftersheretainedanexpert.  Also,basedontherecommendationofDr.Nordquist,theTrialJudgeexcludedboththeAppellantandtheAppelleefromthecourtroomduringthetestimonyofDr.NordquistandlaterduringthetestimonyofDr.DianaMcCoy,theAppellant'spsychologicalexpert.Inexplainingtothepartieswhytheywereexcludedduringthistestimony,theTrialJudgestatedthatthedecisionwasaweighingprocesswhichbalancedthebestinterestsofthechildrenagainsttheproceduralrightsoftheparents.  Atthecloseofthearguments,theTrialJudgefound,almostexactlyfollowingtherecommendationofDr.Nordquist,thatthecustodyoftheminordaughtershouldbeawardedtotheAppellantandthatsolecustodyoftheminorsonshouldbeawardedtotheAppellee.  Afterfilingamotionforanewtrial,theAppellantdiscoveredthattheTrialJudgewasontheadvisoryboardofChildren'sPsychologicalServicesofKnoxville,Inc.,acorporationpartiallyownedbyDr.Wahler. i   ׀Dr.WahlerhadbeenreferredtothepartiesasoneoftheCourt'sexperts.HewasalsoinaprofessionalpartnershipwithDr.Nordquist.Further,inhisfinalordertheTrialJudgerequiredthepartiesandtheiryoungestchildtoengageincontinuedcounselingwithDr.Wahler.Thereafter,theAppellantfiledanamendedmotionfornewtrialandrequestedthattheTrialJudgerecusehimself.Bothmotionsweredenied.TheTrialJudgestatedthathehadnoknowledgethathewasontheadvisoryboardoftheorganizationandthathethoughtthattheorganizationwasnolongerinexistence.  TheAppellantraisesthreeissuesonappeal:8 I.DidthetrialcourterrbydenyingtheAppellant'smotionforcontinuance,necessitatedbythelatefilingofthecustodyevaluationreport?8 II.DidthetrialcourtcommitreversibleerrorbyexcludingthepartiesfromthecourtroomduringthetestimonyoftheCourt'sownexpertwitness,psychologistDr.Nordquist,andduringthetestimonyofthemother'sexpert,psychologistDr.McCoy,andfurther,enjoiningthepartiesfromreadingDr.Nordquist'swrittenreport?8 III.Didthetrialcourterrinrefusingtorecuseandtovacateit'sjudgmentupontheamendedmotionfornewtrialbasedonthejudge'srelationshipwiththeprofessionalgroupofthecourt'sexpertwitness?0 0 0   BecausewefindthattheTrialCourtcommittederrorbyexcludingthepartiesfromthecourtroom,wedonotreachthefirstissue,northemeritsofthethirdissue.  ItistheruleinTennesseethatapartylitiganthastherighttobepresentatallstagesoftheproceeding.Warrenv.Warren,731S.W.2d908(Tenn.App.1985).InWarren,ahusbandappealedfromadivorcedecreeafterthetrialcourtdeniedhisrequestthatacourtreporterbepresentduringpretrialconferencesconductedoutsidethehusband'spresence.TheWesternSectionreversedthedecree,recognizingthat"apartylitigantisobviouslyvitallyinterestedinthesubstantiveaspectsofhisorhercaseandisentitledtobepresentinallstagesoftheactualtrialofthecase."  TheAppelleecorrectlyarguesthattherightsofthepartiesshouldyieldtothebestinterestofthechildren.Griffinv.Stone,834S.W.2d300(Tenn.App.1992),andDantzlerv.Dantzler,665S.W.2d385(Tenn.App.1983).However,beforethebestinterestsofthechildrencanbeproperlydetermined,partiesmusthaveanopportunitytoappropriatelypresenttheircaseandrebutthecaseoftheiradversaries.WebelievetheCourt'spreventingthemotherfromhearingthetestimonyofDr.Nordquist,orevenreadingit,handicapsherabilitytorebutitandrendersafindingastobestinterestsuspect.  TheAppelleeargues,however,thatatmosttheforegoingismerelyharmlesserrorand,assuch,doesnotrequirethejudgmentbesetaside.Rule36(b),TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure. j   ׀Wecannotagree.  Elaboratingonouranalysisofthequestionofbestinterest,wenotethattheTrialJudgenotonlyexcludedtheparentsfromthecourtroomduringthetestimonyofDrs.NordquistandMcCoy,butheenjoinedthemfromreadingDr.Nordquist'stestimonyorhisreport.ThispreventedtheAppellantfromdiscussingwithhercounselboththereportandthetestimonyoftheexperts.Thus,theAppellantwasunabletoevaluatetheaccuracyofthetestimonyandtopointoutinconsistenciesoromissions.Insum,theAppellant'scounsellostthebenefitofalloftheAppellant'sinsight,informationandexperiencesduringthiscrucialtestimony.Indeed,itwouldbedifficulttoarguethatthistestimonywasnotcrucialinlightofthefactthattheTrialJudge'srulingfollowedalmostexactlytherecommendationsoftheCourt'sexpert.  Tostatethepointadifferentway,wefindthatwhereapartyhasbeendeniedtherighttoadequatelyprepareadefense,such,ashere,beingdeniedtherighttohearorevenreadthetestimonyrelieduponbytheTrialCourtinrenderingitsdecision,wemusteither(1)assumeprejudicialerrorjustaswewouldiftheCourtarbitrarilyrefusedtoletapartytestifyorcounseltocrossexamineor(2)findprejudiceresultedtothejudicialprocess.  Finallyastothisissue,wearesatisfiedthattheactionoftheTrialJudgewaspromptedbythepurestofmotivesandinhissincerebeliefthatpermittingthepartiestohearorreadthetestimonyofDr.Nordquistwouldresultinthechildrenbeingadverselyaffected.  Astothefinalissue,theAppellantassertsthattheTrialJudgeerredinfailingtorecusehimself."Ajudgeshoulddisqualifyhimselfinaproceedinginwhichhisimpartialitymightreasonablybequestioned,..."CodeofJudicialConduct,Canon3,TennesseeSupremeCourtRule10.Ajudgeshouldnotserveasanonlegaladvisortoanorganizationifthatorganizationwillbeengagedinproceedingsthatwouldordinarilycomebeforehimorwillberegularlyengagedinadvisoryproceedingsinanycourt.CodeofJudicialConduct,Canon5(B)(1),TennesseeSupremeCourtRule10.  Thequestionofimpartialityshouldbejudgedunderanobjectivestandard.Thus,recusaliswarrantedwhenapersonofordinaryprudenceinthepositionofthejudge,knowingallthefactsknowntothejudge,wouldfindareasonablebasisforquestioningthejudge'simpartiality.Alleyv.State,882S.W.2d810(Tenn.Cr.App.1994).  Priortothecustodyhearingtheparents,children,and"otherrelevantreferencepersons"werereferredbytheTrialCourtto"Drs.RobertWahlerand/orVeyNordquistand/orEdwinRogers...forthepurposeofanevaluationtouchinguponissuesofparenting,custodyandvisitation."TheTrialJudge'snameappearedasanadvisoryboardmemberonthecoverofthepublicationofChildren'sPsychologicalServicesofKnoxville,Inc.,acorporationpartiallyownedbyDr.Wahler.ThepublicationwasdistributedtoalllocalmentalhealthprofessionalsaswellasanumberofindividualsintheKnoxCountySchools.Aspartofthefinalorderinthiscase,thepartiesandtheiryoungestchildwereorderedtoparticipateinongoingcounselingwithDr.Wahler.Moreover,Dr.Nordquist,whowaschosenastheCourt'sexpertandwhosetestimonywascriticaltotheoutcomeofthiscase,wasinaprofessionalpartnershipknownasBehaviorConsultantswithDr.Wahler.  IndenyingtheAppellant'smotionforrecusal,theTrialJudgeofferedreasonsforhisinvolvementwithDr.WahlerandChildren'sPsychologicalServicesofKnoxville,Inc.Hestatedthathethoughttheorganizationwasnolongerinexistence,thathisinvolvementwaslimited,thathethoughtitwasacivicorganization,andthatheneverrenderedlegaladvisetotheorganization.  Theseassertions,takenastrue,arenotdeterminative.Wearetofocusontheappearanceofimpartialityfromanobjectivepointofview.Thus,thefactthathethoughtthecorporationwasnolongerinexistenceorthathisinvolvementwiththecorporationwaslimiteddoesnotnegatethefactthathisnameappearedasanadvisoryboardmemberonacurrentpublicationofthecorporation.Also,theCodeofJudicialConductisviolatedifajudgerendersnonlegaladvicetocivicorcharitableorganizationstoanorganizationthatwouldregularlycomebeforethatjudgeorbeengagedinadversarialproceedingsinanycourt.CodeofJudicialConduct,Canon5(B)(1),TennesseeSupremeCourtRule10.ItisnotunreasonabletoforeseethatthechildpsychologistswhoownChildren'sPsychologicalServicesofKnoxville,Inc.,wouldregularlybeinvolvedinadversarialproceedingsasexperts.̀  TheAppelleearguesthattheTrialJudge'sdutytorecusehingesonashowingofpersonalprejudicedirectedattheAppellant.Theassertionavoidstheplainmeaningoftherulethat"[a]judgeshoulddisqualifyhimselfinaproceedinginwhichhisimpartialitymightreasonablybequestioned,..."CodeofJudicialConduct,Canon3,TennesseeSupremeCourtRule10.  Inourlegalsystem,intheexecutionoftheirduties,judgesshouldoperateindependentlyofgovernmental,economic,politicalorsocialinfluences.Alleyv.State,supra.AsexpressedintheCodeofJudicialConduct,itisalsoimportantforjudgestoavoidtheappearanceofanyeffectoftheseinfluences.WedonotfindinthepresentcasethattheTrialJudgewasactuallyinfluenced,butwedoconcludethatareasonablepersonwithknowledgeofthefactscouldfindareasonablebasisforquestioningtheTrialJudge'simpartiality.  Inconclusionastothisissue,wenotetheTrialJudgehimselfrecognizedhisassociationwiththepsychologicalclinic,eventhoughperipheral,wasintechnicalviolationoftheCanon.Wearesatisfiedthathadthematterbeenbroughttohisattentionpriortothehearingratherthanaftersevendaysoftrialhewouldhaverecusedhimself.  Inlightofourdispositionofissuetwo,wesuggestthatuponremandtheTrialJudgerecusehimselfandrequestanotherjudgebedesignatedtohearthecasewhenretried.  FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisvacatedandthecauseremandedforproceedingsnotinconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsofappealareadjudgedagainstMr.Nielsen.      _______________________________      HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.CONCUR:________________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.________________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sr.J.