The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday concluded its censure of a former judge for racial bias and professional misconduct does not mean she actually was biased in a child welfare proceeding.

In April 2021, the Supreme Court censured and accepted the resignation of then-Arapahoe County District Court Judge Natalie T. Chase, who admitted to saying the N-word in front of court personnel and to disparaging one of her colleagues. The court’s order came as two parents were appealing Chase’s decision to terminate their rights, and they soon asked for a review of Chase’s potential bias in their case.

After a different trial judge overturned Chase’s termination decision based in part on the censure, the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services asked the state Supreme Court to intervene. The justices agreed with the county that Chase’s admission of bias could not serve as grounds to vacate her decision without something more.

“We disagree with the district court’s broad observation that ‘any bias or prejudice to one person is bias and prejudice to all’,” wrote Justice William W. Hood III in the June 6 opinion. “To be sure, bias inflicted on one person can pollute space shared by others. But that’s not the issue here.”

The parents, identified by the initials S.S. and D.P., had their case begin in November 2019 when Arapahoe County claimed they were using and selling heroin in their home, where they had a three-year-old daughter. Chase presided over the case and quickly placed the girl with her grandparents, where she still resides.

Despite multiple failures of the parents to appear, Chase made supportive or encouraging comments to them throughout the case. Finally, in September 2020, the human services department moved to end S.S. and D.P.’s parental rights. Chase allowed S.S. to have a new lawyer, despite her concerns the request was a delay tactic. The judge granted a four-month postponement, then terminated the parental rights at a hearing in January 2021.

Three months later, the Supreme Court censured Chase.

“You acknowledge that your use of the N-word does not promote public confidence in the judiciary and creates the appearance of impropriety. Although not directed at any person, saying the N-word has a significant negative effect on the public’s confidence in integrity of and respect for the judiciary,” the court summarized at the time. Colorado Politics’ review of the entire allegations showed Chase reportedly used the N-word both on and off the bench when asking why Black people could use the word but white people could not.

In a review of Chase’s termination order after the censure, Kenneth M. Plotz, a retired chief judge from another judicial district, determined Chase’s admitted behavior as a judge plus some of her specific actions in S.S. and D.P.’s case were grounds to overturn her decision.

Bypassing the state’s Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court chose to hear the appeal of Plotz’s findings directly. Hood explained in the court’s opinion that while judges should recuse themselves if they appear to be or are actually biased, only actual bias will cause the justices to question an outcome.

“The party asserting that a trial judge was biased ‘must establish that the judge had a substantial bent of mind against him or her’,” wrote Hood, quoting from a prior case on the subject. The justices determined that S.S. and D.P., who are white, had not shown Chase was biased against them.

“And without a showing of actual bias, the trial court lacked any legal basis for questioning the proceeding’s result,” Hood concluded.

The case is People in the Interest of A.P.