A district judge in Denton County is appealing his public reprimand, which alleged he showed deep antagonism for a father in a state child custody case, and violated the father’s rights.

On Aug. 2,431st District Judge Jonathan Bailey requested that Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht appoint judges to a special court of review that will conduct a de novo trial into his judicial misconduct case.

“I allowed my concern for what I perceived to be in the child’s best interest to override my obligation to ensure that father received both due process and a fair trial,” Bailey wrote in a response he filed with the commission, which he emailed to Texas Lawyer.

The high court has 10 days to appoint three jurists to the special court, according to an email by Eric Vinson, executive director of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Once judges are appointed to the panel, the commission must file a charging instrument, he said.

“Even though it is the judge’s appeal, the burden of proof is on the commission,” he noted.

Jonathan Bailey 431st District Judge Jonathan Bailey of Denton County

The appeal concerns a July 16 public admonition, in which the commission condemned Bailey’s conduct in a parental rights termination case between a Texas agency and a father. The commission found Bailey violated judicial ethics rules, which require judges to recuse themselves when it’s appropriate, to be patient, dignified and courteous to those who appear before them in court, and to perform their duties without bias or prejudice.

“The judge failed to treat father with patience, dignity and courtesy by characterizing his trial testimony as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘crap’ and threatening him with prosecution for perjury,” the public admonition said.

The response that Bailey filed to the commission answered extensive questions about holdings by Fort Worth’s Second Court of Appeals, which overturned Bailey’s ruling in the underlying case and remanded the case to a new trial judge.

Bailey argued in the response that there were mischaracterizations or misquotes of some of his statements in the case regarding calling the father’s testimony “ridiculous” and “crap,” among other things.

“The trial transcript reflects that my use of those words was mischaracterized to the point of being misleading,” Bailey wrote in an email.

In one question, the commission asked Bailey why he accused the father of lying and threatened to have him prosecuted for perjury.

“Father provided sworn testimony that contradicted his prior sworn testimony,” Bailey replied. “In this instance, I believe that it was appropriate for me to point out to father that his testimony was demonstrably false, and that if he persisted, he could be prosecuted for perjury.”

Bailey wrote that he agreed with the appellate court’s conclusion that his impartiality was compromised, and he should have voluntarily recused himself. The court’s ruling humbled him, and he feels the way he handled the case was an anomaly compared to similar cases he’s handled as a judge.

“I recognize the mistakes that I made and will not repeat them,” Bailey wrote, noting that he’s attended a child welfare conference for judges to improve his judicial abilities in these cases.

It’s somewhat rare for judges to appeal judicial misconduct sanctions to a special court of review. The courts convene and hold a trial within the Texas Supreme Court’s chambers in Austin. They admit evidence from the commission and the appealing judge and hear witness testimony from both sides. Sometimes the commission files additional charges not included in the original sanction.

Bailey wrote in an email that the judicial conduct commission isn’t supposed to punish judges, but to uphold the honor and dignity of the judiciary. The commission can discipline judges for willful or persistent misconduct, he said. Bailey said that his public admonition exceeds the commission’s lawful purpose.

“In my ninth year on the bench, I have no history of misconduct resulting in public or private sanctions from the [State Commission on Judicial Conduct]. I have handled countless hundreds of other CPS cases without any history or pattern of similar error. I regret that I made mistakes in this case, but did so in a good faith effort to protect the interests of a vulnerable infant child,” he explained.

|

Read Bailey’s entire response:

Read about past judicial misconduct appeals: