David, J.
In this disputed adoption case, we grant transfer for the limited purpose of vacating the section of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing whether the trial court judge should recuse himself on remand. We hold that a trial court judge is not required to recuse himself from a case solely because counsel for one of the parties served as a professional reference and wrote a recommendation letter in support of a judge’s application for another judicial role. We further hold that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court judge is not required to recuse himself on remand. We summarily affirm the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion and remand for further proceedings. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).
….
The facts of this case are a bit different than those in Bloomington Magazine, Abney and Cheek because, here, Judge Nation is not running in a partisan election and Rice is not part of his campaign, as chair or otherwise. Instead, Judge Nation submitted his name for consideration as part of a merit selection process, and as part of his application, he was required to list six professional references, including “three attorneys who have been your professional adversaries in your practice or who have litigated substantial cases in your court and who would be in positions to comment on your qualifications for appointment. . . . ” (Appellant’s Supp. App. Vol. II at 8.) Judge Nation listed Rice as one of the attorneys who appeared before him, along with two other attorneys. Additionally, Rice submitted a letter of recommendation on Judge Nation’s behalf. As one would expect from a recommendation letter, Rice spoke very highly of Judge Nation in that letter, even calling him “the greatest jurist” he had encountered.
though it is not precedent, we find Justice Massa’s Order in Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Fin. Auth., 992 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. 2013) instructive. There, the movant argued that Justice Massa should recuse himself due to his personal friendship with the project manager for one of the parties. Justice Massa declined to do so. He noted that it would be “disabling to this Court if we were required to recuse every time a ‘friend’ came before us as a lawyer for a party or worked as an employee of, or consultant to, a party.” Id. at 680. This is because all of the Justices on the Court have many friends who are lawyers, several Justices came from law firms that appear before the Court and it is not unusual for the court to hear cases argued by lawyers that previously served the Court as judicial law clerks. Id. at 680-81. Finally, while the movant pointed to how the project manager spoke at Justice Massa’s investiture ceremony as evidence of the appearance of impropriety, Justice Massa noted how saying “flattering things” happens on “such occasions.” Id. at 680.
Similarly, although Rice said kind things about Judge Nation in a recommendation letter and served as a reference for him, this alone is not enough to require recusal. If it were, then Judge Nation (and any trial judge who submitted an application for an appellate judge position) would have to recuse himself in each case where one of the attorneys listed on his application and/or who wrote letters for him appeared. This would be disabling to courts, particularly in small Indiana counties where only a handful of attorneys practice in front of the trial court judge.
Further, recusal in this instance would not be based on the circumstances of the case, but rather on speculation that a judge could not be unbiased towards counsel who has tendered a reference letter or agreed to serve as a professional reference. An objective person with knowledge of all the circumstances of this case would be aware of the fact that in order to complete his application for an appellate judge position, Judge Nation was required to list references who have appeared in his court as well as solicit recommendation letters. Recommendation letters by their nature are enthusiastic and flattering. This is not unusual and there is nothing about Rice’s letter that indicates any sort of special relationship beyond a professional one. Just as “friendship” alone may not be enough to require recusal (in some cases, it could be), neither does professional admiration always demand recusal. We trust our judges’ ability to remain unbiased when a reference represents a client in that judge’s court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying Father’s Motion to Recuse.
II. The trial court judge is not required to recuse himself on remand because he previously ruled against Father.
….
Here, Father argues, and the Court of Appeals found that because the trial court order noted that Father was not a credible witness and otherwise negatively characterized his actions throughout the discovery process in its order, Judge Nation should recuse himself from the matter on remand due to concerns that he may not be impartial. However, we disagree. It is the factfinder’s province to assess the credibility of witnesses. This is particularly true in domestic relations cases due to the court’s “unique, direct interactions with the parties face-to-face, often over an extended period of time.” Best v. Best, 941 N.E.2d 499, 502 (Ind. 2011). Our trial judges are “enabled to assess credibility and character through both factual testimony and intuitive discernment” and “are in a superior position to ascertain information and apply common sense, particularly in the determination of the best interests of the involved children.” Id. Thus, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about the trial court finding that Father was not a credible witness. As mentioned above, adverse findings are not sufficient reason to believe the judge has a personal bias or prejudice. Thomas, 486 N.E.2d at 533.
….
The same logic applies to this case. Here, the trial court dismissed Father’s motion to contest the adoption as a discovery sanction. It cannot be presumed that, just because Judge Nation presided over the previous adoption proceedings and has knowledge of the parties, he is biased or prejudiced against Father. Judge Nation’s order made no findings about the merits of Father’s motion to contest the adoption or Father’s ability to be a suitable parent. Accordingly, we see no need for Judge Nation to recuse himself on remand.
Conclusion
We hold that Judge Nation was not required to recuse himself from this case solely because counsel for one of the parties served as a professional reference and wrote a recommendation letter on his behalf. We further hold that while Judge Nation is familiar with the parties and has previously made findings against Father, because he did not express an opinion on the merits of the adoption proceeding, he is not required to recuse himself on remand. We summarily affirm the remainder of the Court of Appeals opinion and remand for further proceedings.
Rush, C.J., and Massa and Goff, JJ., concur.
Slaughter, J., not participating.