In re A.S., 555 P.3d 732

The case concerns the termination of parental rights of H.S. (Father) regarding his child, A.S., after the child and mother tested positive for amphetamines and the state placed A.S. in foster care.
Father was incarcerated in a federal facility during the termination hearing and appeared only via Zoom, with the hearing otherwise conducted in-person.
The court proceeded with the hearing without allowing Father to testify, communicate with his attorney, or participate meaningfully; the State’s efforts to secure his physical presence were unsuccessful.
The district court terminated Father's parental rights, finding him unfit mostly due to nonparticipation in reintegration efforts, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
On appeal to the Kansas Supreme Court, Father argued that his due process rights were violated by not being allowed to testify or otherwise participate meaningfully in the hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process—right to participate in termination hearing	Father was denied due process by not being able to testify, communicate with counsel, or participate meaningfully during the hearing.	The State argued there was no objection at the hearing, no indication that Father wanted to testify, and that counsel did not request a continuance or object to the process.	The Supreme Court held that due process was violated, as the court has a duty to ensure meaningful participation, and waiver of this right must be knowing, voluntary, intelligent, and on the record.
Preservation of constitutional argument	Exception should apply because fundamental rights are at stake, meeting the requirement for addressing unpreserved constitutional issues on appeal.	Father failed to preserve the issue or provide adequate explanation under Rule 6.02(a)(5), so the Court of Appeals declined to review the due process claim.	The Supreme Court found the panel abused its discretion by not considering the issue, as Father adequately invoked the fundamental rights exception.
Harmlessness of error	The error was not harmless because Father might have affected the outcome had he been able to participate.	The termination was proper, as evidence of unfitness was clear and compelling regardless of Father’s participation.	The error was not harmless; the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt the outcome would be unchanged if Father had participated fully.

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (Due process balancing test for procedural protections)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (Recognition of the fundamental liberty interest in parental rights)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (Standard of proof and due process requirements in termination proceedings)
Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Services of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18 (Parental rights as a commanding interest in termination proceedings)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (Due process protects fundamental values in parental termination context)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (Waiver of rights must be knowing and not presumed)