The Court of Appeals upheld an Adams County judge’s termination of a man’s parental rights, even though the man was not present and a different person – with his same name – was on the phone during the parental rights hearing instead.

The caseworker in a child welfare proceeding learned that the child’s father was incarcerated, and the court made arrangements for him to appear by telephone. At the hearing to terminate the parental rights of the father, identified as C.B., District Court Judge Katherine R. Delgado confirmed that she had C.B. on the phone line and the hearing proceeded.

During a break, C.B.’s attorney learned that the man on the line was not her client. C.B., the caller, confirmed that he had the same name as C.B., the father, but that the case was not his. Delgado then had the man hang up.

The lawyer for C.B. – the father – said C.B. was supposedly incarcerated in Denver as of six weeks prior to the hearing, but an attorney for Adams County could not locate him in either Denver or Adams counties. C.B.’s lawyer eventually learned her client was no longer in custody, and the court took a three-hour break to try and find him.

The attempt to locate C.B. was unsuccessful. His attorney indicated she would conclude her case, and Delgado terminated C.B.’s parent-child relationship.

On appeal, C.B. argued Delgado violated his procedural rights under the law by depriving him of the opportunity to participate in the hearing and present evidence. Last week, a three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals disagreed.

“Because dependency and neglect proceedings are civil in nature, neither due process nor other constitutional guarantees require a parent’s presence at a termination hearing,” wrote Judge Neeti Vasant Pawar in the Feb. 17 opinion.

Pawar elaborated that C.B. received notice of the hearing, was represented by an attorney, and had the opportunity to participate through his lawyer. C.B. did not explain why he was absent at the hearing, even though Delgado paused to allow his attorney to find him.

C.B. claimed that had he been present, he would have testified about the steps he planned to take to demonstrate his fitness as a parent and his commitment to treatment. The juvenile court heard extensive testimony about C.B.’s refusal to get substance abuse treatment, disengagement with therapy, and lack of communication with the caseworker to visit with his child.

“(W)e are not persuaded that father’s testimony would have affected the ultimate outcome of the termination hearing,” Pawar concluded.

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