in the Matter of the Marriage of Amanda Bradshaw and Barney Bradshaw, 06-15-00038-CV

Appellee Barney Bradshaw filed a pro se motion asking the three justices of the Sixth Court of Appeals (Texarkana) to recuse themselves from his pending family-law appeal (In the Matter of the Marriage of Amanda Bradshaw and Barney Bradshaw).
Bradshaw’s recusal request rested on the fact the same panel had recently affirmed his criminal conviction on appeal.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3 governs recusal motions in this Court: the challenged justice must either recuse or certify the motion to the full court, which decides by a majority of the remaining judges en banc.
Each challenged justice (Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley, Justice Burgess) considered the motion in chambers, declined to recuse, and certified the motion to the court en banc pursuant to Rule 16.3(b).
The en banc court reviewed the pleadings and record, treated each recusal motion as fact-intensive and case-specific, and found the allegations unsubstantiated.
The court denied each recusal motion; each order notes the challenged justice did not participate in the en banc decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the three justices should be recused from the family-law appeal	Prior participation in affirming Bradshaw’s criminal conviction creates bias or appearance of bias requiring recusal	Prior participation in unrelated criminal appeal does not establish grounds for recusal; challenged justices conducted required in-chambers review and certified to court en banc	Denied — no reason to recuse; allegations unsubstantiated
Whether Rule 16.3 procedure was followed	Bradshaw argued recusal was warranted so procedure should be applied to remove justices	Court followed Rule 16.3: each justice considered motion in chambers, declined to recuse, certified to en banc	Held: Proper Rule 16.3(b) procedure was followed
Whether recusal determinations require case-by-case, fact-intensive review	Bradshaw asserted appearance of bias based on prior decision sufficed	Court emphasized recusal decisions are fact-specific and must be examined on pleadings/record	Held: Court applied fact-intensive review and found no basis for recusal
Whether the challenged justices could participate in en banc decision on the motion	Bradshaw implied full court involvement might be improper if challenged justices stayed	Justices refrained from participating in en banc consideration of their own motions as required	Held: Each challenged justice did not participate; en banc properly decided motion by remaining judges

McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001) (discussing in-chambers consideration and certification under appellate recusal procedure)
Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. 1984) (recusal and certification principles and procedure)
Williams v. Viswanathan, 65 S.W.3d 685 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (recusal motions require fact-specific review)