| |
In this recent termination of parental rights appeal,
the respondent father, incarcerated out of state, claimed that the
trial court violated his due process rights by denying his request
for a continuance and release of trial transcripts. The father,
who was able to participate in the trial for only 30 minutes by
phone, claimed that the continuance and transcripts were necessary
so that he could carefully review trial evidence with counsel and
determine whether he should testify and/or rebut certain evidentiary
claims. The appellate court determined that the father’s due process
rights were not violated and the Supreme Court affirmed this decision.
The Supreme Court, applying the Matthews v. Eldridge analysis, agreed
that the liberty interest at stake is fundamental and compelling,
and therefore the first prong of the Matthews’ analysis weighed
in favor of the respondent. However, the father’s claim failed on
the second prong of Matthews, namely whether the provision of additional
procedures such as granting respondent’s request for transcripts
and continuance would have reduced the risk of an erroneous deprivation
of the father’s interests. The Court, relying on the trial record,
noted that there was ample evidence that the father had abandoned
the child in question and that he had no ongoing relationship with
the child. The trial court’s findings were made, in no small part,
on the father’s admissions as contained in the social study. Most
importantly, the father was not able to demonstrate at trial or
on appeal what additional evidence he would have attempted to submit
to refute any material finding made by the trial court. Accordingly,
the Supreme Court held that, in this case, the father’s due process
rights were not violated. That being said, the Court took the additional
step of commenting that, given the compelling interests at stake
in a termination proceeding, “when an incarcerated respondent’s
request for a transcript and for a continuance is accompanied by
a credible claim that the respondent could rebut the petitioner’s
evidence if given the opportunity, and when granting the request
would be consistent with the orderly administration of justice,
the trial court ordinarily should provide these important procedural
safeguards.”
|
