States have canons of judicial conduct as well as rules governing circumstances when judges should recuse themselves from hearing cases. The rules may provide for judges to remove themselves and/or for litigants or their attorneys to seek their removal. The difficulty is what to do where judges do not remove themselves but counsel or a client believes a judge is not impartial.

This is particularly difficult in domestic violence cases. Children do not choose their parents. Both parents seemingly come to court as co-equals, with equal constitutional rights to parent their children. Simultaneously, parents have an obligation to raise their children to be safe and secure in their homes. When there is domestic violence, courts must understand these concerns in such a way as to make clear that they are still impartial arbiters. They must also recognize the negative impact of domestic violence on children even where the children themselves have not been personally assaulted.

Of course, every state's recusal is unique. Using New Jersey Judicial canons and rules as an example, Rule 1:12-1(g) requires disqualification of a judge, on the court's own motion, "when there is any reason which might preclude a fair and unbiased hearing and judgment, or which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe so." The Rules also permit "[a]ny party, on motion made to the judge before trial or argument and stating the reasons therefor," to move for recusal. R. 1:12-2. Similar to most other states, a judge must be removed if "a fully informed person might reasonably question the impartiality of [the] judge." State v. Dalal, 438 N.J. Super. 156, 161 (App. Div. 2014), certif. granted, 221 N.J 216 (2015) (quoting Hundred E. Credit v. Eric Schuster, 212 N.J. Super. 350, 358 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 107 N.J. 6 (1986)).