Brown, J.
B.M. and R.M. appeal the trial court’s orders of protection and claim they were denied due process and the evidence is insufficient to support the orders. We reverse and remand.
….
B.M. and R.M. argue the trial court denied them a fair and impartial hearing and due process. They assert the judge did not remain impartial, told K.M. to “sit there and shut your mouth” when he attempted to object which effectively silenced them from making any further objections, restricted their right to cross-examine R.J., “crossed the line from impartial judge to advocate for A.J. in his questioning of B.M. in his attempt to discredit and impeach the witness,” and concluded the evidence without inquiring whether they had additional witnesses or evidence. Appellants’ Brief at 16, 18. They further argue the record is devoid of evidence that R.M. stalked or harassed A.J. and that A.J.’s testimony that B.M. would tell R.M. to follow her was entirely speculation. They also contend that the evidence was insufficient to show B.M. stalked or harassed A.J. and that B.M. provided an explanation for being at Steak ‘n Shake and for the reason his vehicle rolls back and has to be revved.
….
Here, the trial court made comments throughout the hearing that were improper. At the beginning of the hearing, the court stated “I’ll warn everybody before we get started, I am not in a good mood today” and “I’m here this morning at 8:30 a.m. on this nonsense.” Transcript Volume II at 5. When K.M. attempted to clarify that a question by A.J.’s counsel related to ninth grade, the court stated “[y]ou will sit there and shut your mouth” or would be “out of here or across the street in the county jail.” Id. at 8. The court stated “I don’t care if he came with a bazooka.” Id. at 21. The court took control of the hearing and called B.M. as a witness. After it heard testimony, the court stated: “Okay. I’ve heard enough. I’m ready to rule,” “if I were this man and this was my daughter, it would have went a hell of a lot further than it did. Anyone called my daughter a whore, there’d be hell to pay for it from me,” and “this pisses me off.” Id. at 28-29. Our reading of the transcript of the proceedings leads us to the conclusion that B.M. and R.M. have made a prima facie showing that the trial court failed to preside over the hearing as a neutral, impartial decision maker in violation of B.M. and R.M.’s due process rights. We are mindful of the pressures and stresses on trial courts. Despite these pressures, judges are expected to adhere to the Judicial Canons and treat litigants and their counsel with civility. While the trial court may have ultimately reached the proper result, it must reach that decision in the correct way.
We reverse and remand for a new hearing before a different judicial officer and order that, pending the hearing, there be no contact between A.J. and B.M. and between A.J. and R.M.
Reversed and remanded.
Pyle, J., concurs.
May, J., concurs in result without opinion.