Judge Rich reprimanded for delay in child custody case

Bedford County General Sessions Judge Charles Rich was reprimanded this week by Tennessee Court of the Judiciary over an eight month-delay in a child custody case.

But Rich says that the serious nature of the case and the interests of the child were the reasons behind the delay.

The reprimand stems from a complaint filed by attorney Timothy Underwood and states that Rich violated two Canons of the Code of Judical Conduct, which establish standards for ethical conduct of judges.

The letter, which was issued Monday, concerns Rich's actions in hearing a Lincoln County Juvenile Court case in which Christa Badenhop Garrett sought the custody of her child.

According to the letter of reprimand from Don R. Ash, presiding judge of the Court of the Judiciary, the letter was signed "pursuant to your agreement with the Investigative Panel of this Court."

Ash wrote that in 2004, Rich had "agreed to interchange with the Lincoln County General Sessions Judge to hear matters relating to the minor child involved in this litigation."

Garrett, who is the natural mother of the child in question, filed a petition seeking to be restored to custody of the child and on July 18 of last year, Rich heard the petition and "took the matter under advisement."

However, Ash wrote that Rich made no ruling on the custody petition and that attorney Underwood wrote the judge in October 2008 seeking the status of the decision in the case.

"You took no action," Ash wrote. "In December of 2008 Mr. Underwood wrote again seeking to determine the status of the case. Again you took no action in deciding the case."

Underwood's complaint to the Disciplinary Council of the Court, "that was based on your failure to to decide this important custody matter" was received on Jan. 26 of this year.

"You were immediately given notice of the complaint," Ash stated. "However, you failed to decide this case until March 6, 2009, approximately eight months from the time of its submission to you."

Ash wrote that Rich's refusal to decide the case in a timely fashion caused Garrett to "expend additional legal fees and efforts to obtain a decision in this case," calling his actions "a violation of Canon 2 A requiring a judge to know and follow the law."

The letter also says that Rich also violated Canon 3 B (8), which requires a judge "to depose of all judicial matter promptly, efficiently, and fairly."

Ash goes on to say that Rich's conduct "is detrimental to the administration of justice and brings the judiciary into public disrepute ..."

"In the future you are to explicitly follow the Code of Judicial Conduct and to decide promptly case which are submitted to you," Ash wrote.

In a statement from Rich received via e-mail Tuesday, he said, "In 2004, I agreed to sit on a child custody case in Lincoln County, Tennessee. There were approximately four (4) hearings between 2004 and July 18, 2008, with a final hearing on that date, which involved numerous witnesses."

"At the hearing, a significant conflict developed in the testimony, and I took the matter under advisement in order to allow the parties an opportunity to file additional pleadings with the court," the judge said.

"Following the additional filings by the parties, I began my decision making process. Due to the serious nature of the case and my concern for the best interests of a child, I took longer than I would ordinarily take in deciding a case," Rich explained. "The Court of the Judiciary, who monitors the conduct of the judges felt that I took too long to render my decisions.

"I chose not to contest the Court's finding, and the matter is now concluded," Rich said.

This is the second time in less than a year that Rich has received a public letter of reprimand.

Last October, Rich was reprimanded by the Court of the Judiciary for refusing to make a finding of fact in a child support case, which delayed the mother's ability to make an appeal in the case.