Judge Carl E. Lewis has recused himself in the Katie Wernecke case in Corpus Christi. 

Texas Center for Family Rights commends Judge Lewis for making the right decision but questions his motive. In June of this year Judge Lewis issued orders to remove Katie from her parents and place her in the custody of CPS because of a disagreement Katie’s parents had with a doctor over the type of cancer treatment she should receive.

According to an article in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times , "Lewis said the [Texas] Supreme Court’s Actions caused him to step down."

On September 23rd, James Pikl, attorney for Katie’s parents, filed a motion for recusal.  At the same time he requested an order issued by Judge Lewis -- cutting off contact of the parents with their daughter -- be voided.

Pikl filed the motion for the judge to step down based upon a violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct (TCJC) by Lewis when he independently visited Katie and interviewed doctors in Houston on or about September 15th without counsel for the parents present. 

Canon 3 of the TCJC  forbids this type of personal contact with a party or witness to a suit without the presence of other parties because it calls into question the  impartiality of judges.

On September 20th Judge Lewis adjourned a hearing regarding Katie because he was not feeling well.  Subsequently he entered the hospital and within twenty four hours had open heart surgery.  CPS apparently independently visited him in the hospital and obtained his signature on orders restricting Mr. Wernecke from any contact with Katie and allowing Mrs. Wernecke supervised contact ONLY if she would encourage Katie to go ahead with treatment advised by M.D. Anderson.

Last Friday the Texas Supreme Court issued the stay requested by the parents and modified the orders of Judge Lewis to grant both parents supervised visits with their daughter with the restriction that they cannot encourage Katie not to comply with the treatment plan.

Today the Corpus Christi Caller-Times publicized the decision of Judge Lewis to recuse himself from this case.  According to the Caller-Times  Judge Lewis wrote, "In light of the substantial attention given this case by the Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child."

The Judge’s comments indicate he is stepping aside because of the publicity related to the involvement of the Texas Supreme Court. 

But what about his violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct?  Is that not reason enough?  Would he have considered his actions proper if it weren’t for the publicity of the Texas Supreme Court?

As Jim Pikl properly states in his motion for recusal, "The test for recusal is not ‘actual impartiality.   Rather the test is whether another person , knowing all the circumstances, might reasonably question the judge’s impartiality."

Judge Lewis’s actions clearly call into question his impartiality.  His recusal was necessary and we commend him for it.  The actions of the Texas Supreme Court, however, should have had no bearing whatsoever as a reason for the recusal..


Respectfully,


Peter H. Johnston, J.D.
President