Did the Indiana Court of Appeals decision conflict with the due process standard in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Questions 1. Did the Indiana Court of Appeals decision in this matter conflict with the due process standard which was declared in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009)? 2. Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violated when a magistrate issues a ruling while working under a judge who was counsel of record for a party during the trial, although the magistrate is also working under other judges as well? I Summary In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009), this Court stated that due process requires an objective inquiry into judicial bias, and where there is an objective risk of actual bias on the part of the factfinder, it is a due process violation. In Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899, 1917 ((2016), this Court stated when the issue of bias of a judge is reviewed, participation of an interested judge is a defect not amenable to harmless error review. During trial in the matter below, Counsel for Respondent Father won election to become judge in the county, and at the time that the magistrate who was the factfinder issued his order, the magistrate was working as a magistrate under Respondent Father’s counsel. The Indiana Court of Appeals denied Petitioner Mother’s appeal, failing to apply the objective standard, in conflict of the standard enunciate by this Court in Caperton.