A mother in a private dependency case moved to recuse the juvenile-court judge after an adjudication hearing, alleging bias, ex parte conduct, and courtroom actions that she said compromised the fairness of the proceedings. After the judge denied the motion himself, the mother appealed, arguing the affidavit’s facts should have been assumed true at the threshold and the motion referred to another judge. The Court of Appeals held that the judge could assess timeliness and legal sufficiency but could not dispute the affidavit’s factual allegations; once assumed true, they could warrant disqualification. It reversed and remanded with direction for a new judge to resume the case from the recusal motion; all later proceedings and orders were void.