## Facts

- CYFD took temporary custody of three children after their mother left them with a babysitter and failed to return.
- The mother later resurfaced but relapsed into drug abuse and did not maintain contact with CYFD or the children.
- The father was incarcerated in Texas on a felony conviction when the neglect/abuse case began.
- The father answered the petition, asserted indigency, requested appointed counsel, and sought to participate in hearings affecting custody, including by transport or continuance.
- The children’s court appointed counsel and issued a transport order, but the order could not compel Texas authorities and the father did not appear.
- CYFD moved to terminate parental rights; the termination hearing was set over the father’s objection that he could not be present.
- On the first day of the termination hearing, the court continued the matter for one month to allow possible participation.
- When the hearing resumed, counsel sought another continuance because the father had been released and re-incarcerated but was expected to be released shortly; the court denied the request and proceeded without the father.
- Only CYFD presented live witnesses; the father’s counsel cross-examined but the father did not testify or otherwise present evidence.
- The children’s court terminated parental rights; the father appealed on procedural due process grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether an incarcerated parent has a constitutional right to meaningful participation in a termination-of-parental-rights hearing when physical حضور cannot be secured.
2. Whether proceeding with the termination hearing after denying a further continuance, without providing alternative participation procedures, violated procedural due process.

## Decision

- The court held an incarcerated parent has no absolute right to be physically present at a termination hearing.
- The court held due process nonetheless requires a meaningful opportunity to participate, which may be provided through reasonable alternatives to physical حضور.
- The court concluded that representation by counsel alone was insufficient on these facts because the father had no practical means to present evidence or respond to testimony.
- The court reversed the termination judgment and remanded for a new termination hearing consistent with due process.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights affects a fundamental liberty interest and requires heightened procedural protections.
- Procedural due process requires an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
- Under Mathews balancing, courts weigh: (1) the private interest (parental rights), (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under current procedures, and (3) the government’s interests and burdens of additional safeguards.
- When an incarcerated parent cannot be transported, the court must consider and, where reasonable, use alternative procedures (e.g., telephonic/video testimony, deposition, written submissions, or continuances tied to imminent release) to permit meaningful participation.
- A termination judgment may not stand where the parent is effectively excluded from presenting a position and the court fails to provide any workable participation method.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the termination of the father’s parental rights because, although he had no absolute right to attend in person, due process required a meaningful opportunity to participate, and the children’s court neither secured his presence nor provided reasonable alternative procedures before permanently severing the parent-child relationship.


State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Ruth Anne E. (In re Ruth Anne E.), 126 N.M. 670, 974 P.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1999)