Termination under § 19b(3)(b)(i); Stipulation; Due process; Respondent’s absence during the preliminary hearing; Jurisdictional plea & the release of parental rights; Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)

The court affirmed the trial court’s order terminating respondent-father’s parental rights to his two adopted children, AM and CP. “In 2019, then 60-year-old respondent, who was a neighbor, adopted the children after their biological parents’ rights were involuntarily terminated.” In 9/24, he was sentenced to prison for possession of child sexually abusive material and using a computer to commit a crime. His earliest parole eligibility date is 3/7/26 but his maximum release date is 9/7/31. “As a result of his convictions, respondent will be required to register under the” SORA. He asserted “that his due process rights were violated when the trial court proceeded with the preliminary hearing in his absence.” He also contended “that because the court did not advise him of his appellate rights in open court, although it sent him written notice of them, ‘it is possible he would have made other decisions at the time for trial.’” But he failed to establish “that he was prejudiced by his unexplained absence during the recorded portion of the preliminary hearing.” Moreover, his claim “that he might have made other decisions at the time of trial had his appellate rights been read to him at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing is speculative.” While the trial court did not advise him “of his appellate rights during the preliminary hearing, it asked [his] attorney to do so and it noted on the record that respondent’s appellate rights were included in the order entered after the preliminary hearing.” The record also contained “an advice of rights form that was mailed to respondent, explaining his ability to appeal the children’s removal, which he could have discussed with his attorney at any time.” Respondent further asserted “that the trial court erred in accepting his plea and the release of parental rights because they were not made knowingly or voluntarily.” As to his plea, he recognized “that many of his rights were explained to him, but contends that he was not advised that he had 21 days to appeal until after the voluntary termination. Our review of the transcript reflects that the trial court fully complied with the requirements of the plea-taking rule.” The court noted that the trial court mailed him “information about his appellate rights after the preliminary hearing.” Regarding the voluntary termination of his parental rights, based on the record, the court concluded that he was “not entitled to relief.” Nothing in the record suggested that his “voluntary release of his parental rights was the result of misunderstanding, intimidation, coercion, deception, or haste. Rather, the record shows that respondent’s plea, stipulations, and release were tendered freely, deliberately, and with full understanding.”