In its first guidance issued in the wake of an Arapahoe County judge’s resignation for acts of racism and official misconduct, the Court of Appeals has ordered a lower court to review whether bias influenced Judge Natalie T. Chase’s decision to terminate parental rights of a mother and father.

Chase, a district court judge who handled child dependency and neglect cases following time spent in criminal court, agreed to resign after admitting to several episodes of misconduct. Among other incidents, Chase repeatedly said the N-word in front of Black court employees and weighed in from the bench on the Black Lives Matter protests from last summer. A statement of charges from the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline noted additional allegations against Chase, including that she questioned lawyers about their anonymous reviews of her, and that she wished parties a “happy Father’s Day” after she terminated a man’s parental rights.

The Supreme Court censured Chase on April 16, and the Office of Respondent Parent’s Counsel, which represents indigent parents in family court proceedings, has now asked parents of color who appeared before Chase to report suspected bias. The office made a total of 1,560 attorney appointments in juvenile cases statewide in fiscal year 2019, 138 of which were in Chase’s 18th Judicial District.

On Thursday, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals declined to outright reverse Chase’s termination of a mother and father’s parental rights, but instead decided a different judge must consider the parties’ allegations of bias “with all due speed.”

“Because these contentions may provide a basis for relief,” wrote Judge Rebecca R. Freyre for the panel, the parents should “obtain a ruling from a judicial officer other than Judge Chase, to avoid any appearance of partiality, subject to further review in this court.”

The appellate panel had scheduled oral arguments for the parents’ appeal four days following the Supreme Court’s censure of Chase. Katayoun A. Donnelly, an attorney representing the father, claimed Chase’s treatment of the man was cause for concern given his Hispanic heritage.

“If the judge was not qualified to be a judicial officer, any critical determination that was made by her cannot be relied upon by this court,” she argued to the panel.

Under the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, a judge may void a judgment for multiple reasons, including mistakes, misconduct or “excusable neglect,” a term referring to circumstances beyond a party’s control. Although Chase denied to the judicial discipline commission that her actions stemmed from racism, she acknowledged violating the rule that “prohibits a judge from manifesting bias or prejudice based on race or ethnicity by word or action,” according to the Supreme Court’s narrative.

“We appreciate that the trial and appellate courts are taking the concerns raised by the public censure of Judge Chase seriously,” the Office of Respondent Parent’s Counsel said in a statement following the ruling, “and appreciate the work of our attorneys who are working tirelessly to ensure that parents, when faced with the ultimate penalty of permanent severance of their relationship with their children, have access to fair and impartial judges and procedures.”

The Arapahoe County Attorney’s Office, which handles dependency and neglect cases in the jurisdiction, said it agreed with the parents’ request for lower-court review of Chase’s decision. “There is no place for racial bias within our judicial system,” the office added.

The case is People in Interest of S.M. & E.M.

This article has been updated with comments from the Arapahoe County Attorney’s Office.