Due process; Mathews v Eldridge; Incarcerated respondent’s presence; In re Vasquez; Incomplete record; Jordan v Department of Health & Human Servs

The court held that the termination order had to be vacated because the record was too undeveloped to determine whether the trial court violated respondent’s due process rights by conducting the termination hearing in her absence. The DHHS sought termination after respondent was arrested while driving a stolen vehicle with her child (TV) unsecured and a firearm beside the child. The amended petition later alleged that respondent participated in the foster-home shooting in which the foster mother and her father were killed, the foster father was wounded, and TV was abducted and later recovered. On appeal, the court held that the trial court gave inconsistent explanations for finding that respondent’s absence on 4/7/25 was voluntary, at times relying on an off-record jail communication that “the reason she is not here today is her refusal to be present,” and at other times relying on respondent’s failure to provide medical documentation after the prior adjournment. The court next held that, because there was no record evidence establishing the content of the jail communication, “with whom from the jail it was made, and the basis for the jail’s understanding,” the court could not determine whether the trial court erred in finding respondent refused to appear. It also held that the incomplete record prevented meaningful review of whether proceeding in respondent’s absence satisfied due process, explaining that, as in Jordan, the record was “‘too incomplete to facilitate meaningful appellate review[.]’” Thus, it remanded for fact-finding on the reason for respondent’s absence, using record evidence sufficient for appellate review, and directed the trial court to decide whether it properly proceeded in her absence. Vacated and remanded.