The Tennessee Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to deny a motion to recuse a judge in a contentious child custody case involving Don Daniel March and Kathryn March. The ruling, issued on October 28, 2026, is significant as it addresses the standards for judicial recusal and the rights of litigants in custody disputes.

The case, identified as Kathryn March v. Don Daniel March, No. E2026-01515-COA-T10B-CV, stems from a custody determination made by the Knox County Chancery Court. Don March sought the recusal of Chancellor Christopher D. Heagerty, arguing that the judge's impartiality could be questioned due to ongoing legal proceedings against him in federal court.

Background

Don and Kathryn March have been embroiled in a legal battle over the custody of their children. The dispute escalated following a hearing on May 14, 2025, where issues surrounding accommodations for Don March's hearing impairment were raised. The court provided a Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) system to assist him, but it malfunctioned during the hearing, leading to concerns about the adequacy of the accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

During the hearing, Dr. Shannon Wilson, a psychologist, testified about her evaluation of the March family, ultimately recommending that Kathryn be designated the primary residential parent. Following the hearing, Don March filed multiple motions, including a request for CART transcripts and a motion to reconsider the court's decisions, citing inadequate ADA accommodations. The trial court denied these motions, leading to March's first appeal regarding the judge's recusal.

In his first motion to recuse, filed on October 9, 2025, Don March claimed bias from Chancellor Heagerty due to the judge's involvement in the case. This motion was denied, and the appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling in December 2025. March subsequently filed a federal lawsuit against the state and the judge, which he argued necessitated the judge's recusal due to potential conflicts of interest.

The Ruling

In the recent ruling, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reviewed Don March's second motion for recusal, which was filed on September 2, 2026. The court found that there was no basis for questioning Chancellor Heagerty's impartiality. The judges involved in the ruling included John W. McClarty, who delivered the opinion, along with J. Steven Stafford and Jeffrey Usman.

The court ruled, "Upon review of the petition for recusal appeal and all supporting exhibits, we find no basis upon which to conclude that a person of ordinary prudence in the trial judge’s position, knowing all of the facts known to him, would find a reasonable basis for questioning the trial judge’s impartiality."

The court noted that the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. However, it emphasized that adverse rulings by a trial court do not automatically imply bias or prejudice warranting recusal. The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the party seeking recusal, and in this case, Don March failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future cases involving judicial recusal in Tennessee. It clarifies that merely filing a lawsuit against a judge does not automatically necessitate recusal. The court's decision reinforces the principle that judges should not be disqualified based on dissatisfaction with their rulings or the filing of complaints against them.

The outcome of this case affects not only the parties involved but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. It emphasizes the need for litigants to adhere to procedural requirements when seeking recusal and demonstrates the courts' commitment to maintaining judicial integrity and impartiality.

What's Next

Following the court's decision, Don March's case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. It remains to be seen if March will pursue additional legal avenues or if he will continue with the custody proceedings under Chancellor Heagerty. The court's ruling is final unless further appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.