“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 Supreme Court’s opinion for People in the Interest of A.P. “The record must clearly demonstrate the alleged bias.”

Lawyers for E.R. attempted to minimize the importance of the A.P. decision, saying it unfolded under a different set of circumstances – specifically, with two parents who were white. Attorney Katayoun Donnelly argued the scenario of a judge acknowledging their bias was unique, and promised Plotz there was “overwhelming evidence” of Chase’s prejudice against E.R.

She also accused the government of defending Chase’s handling of the case with little concern for her admitted bias, or the alleged bias of others in Arapahoe County’s child welfare system.

“It doesn’t seem to at all faze them that this happened in the courtroom they have practiced law,” Donnelly argued.

“When you say something like that,” Plotz chided her, “it seems as if you’re not acknowledging this court’s – me as judge – my original finding in the A.P. case and the Supreme Court’s reaction to that finding.”

Previously, Plotz held a hearing in October in accordance with the Court of Appeals’ directive. Although E.R.’s attorneys attempted to bring Chase herself into the courtroom for questioning, Plotz blocked the move, emphasizing the A.P.  decision obligated him to look only at existing facts in the court record.

Instead, E.R. called two expert witnesses, who each pointed out several anomalies in E.R.’s child welfare case. First, E.R. had been treated similarly as the children’s non-Hispanic mother, even though E.R. had asked for the government’s intervention in the first place because he was concerned about the mother’s behavior.

“That’s usually not what happens,” testified Stephen T. Wilson, a lecturer at the University of Washington’s School of Social Work.

Second, Chase ended the parents’ visitations with their children after Halloween 2019, when there were reports the interactions were causing the girls symptoms that precluded them from attending school. Chase herself admitted she had taken such a drastic step fewer than five times total in her career as a judge. But longtime child welfare worker Kelly Garcia-Brauch observed it was unusual that the parents were required to visit with the children together in the lead-up to the end of visitations.

“When visitation occurs and you have supervised visitation, you are ultimately looking at their parenting skills,” she said. “It was odd to me that due to the contentious relationship of the parents, they would be put in the same room at the same time.”

Finally, the experts found the lack of professional testimony in E.R.’s case to be anomalous. Those irregularities, combined with statistics showing the overrepresentation of families of color in the child welfare system, led them to conclude Chase’s bias played a role in her treatment of E.R.

The government countered that E.R. had failed to show clear and convincing evidence of Chase’s bias against him specifically, and argued the judge had done what was in the best interest of E.R.’s children. Jeff Koy, a lawyer for the office that represented the children, pointed out that Chase even engaged E.R. in small talk, which E.R. said made him feel more comfortable.

“It may feel like there’s hostility toward the father. I’m sure he feels that way given the ruling the court has made,” Koy said. “When you look at the court file, there’s clear efforts to try and engage father and help him meet the needs of his children.”

Ultimately, Plotz agreed with the government that E.R. had not made a case that satisfied the Supreme Court’s explicit directive for showing bias.

“The focus must be on Judge Chase,” he said. “Did her comments, did her specific actions of record, show actual bias by clear and convincing evidence? … Simply put, the burden hasn’t been met.”

Chase did not respond to a message seeking comment.

The case is People in the Interest of S.M. and E.M.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with additional information about E.R.’s arguments of bias.