In Re Interests K.H.
444 P.3d 354
Kan. Ct. App.2019Background
- In August 2015 the State filed a CINC petition alleging Mother physically abused her three children; children were placed in DCF custody and later adjudicated CINC after Mother did not contest the petition.
- Multiple review, permanency, and pretrial hearings occurred from 2015–2018; Mother attended most hearings in person and was represented by court-appointed counsel throughout the case.
- The State filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights; a notice warned parties that failure to appear could result in the court making decisions without their input.
- At the June 26, 2018 termination hearing Mother did not appear in person but was present by counsel; the court granted a "default judgment" terminating her parental rights without receiving or proffering evidence.
- Mother moved to set aside the default judgment, asserting inadvertence and a meritorious defense; the district court denied relief and entered statutory findings of unfitness and best interests without evidence.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the district court erred by terminating parental rights via default where Mother appeared through counsel and no evidence was presented; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may enter a default judgment terminating parental rights when a parent fails to appear in person but is represented by counsel | Mother: Termination by default without evidence violated due process and statutory procedure; she was not in default because she was represented | State: Notice in motion and statutory language permitted court to decide without parent's input and enter default | Court: Parent represented by counsel is not in default; if parent appears by counsel the State must proffer or present evidence before termination; default was improper |
| Whether statutes K.S.A. 38-2234 and 60-255 authorized termination without evidentiary hearing | Mother: Those statutes do not authorize termination without evidence when parent is represented | State: The notices in pleadings and default-judgment statute support proceeding without parent present | Court: Neither statute justified terminating parental rights without receiving or proffering evidence where parent was represented by counsel |
| Whether the record contained sufficient evidence to find Mother unfit by clear and convincing evidence | Mother: No evidence was presented at the termination hearing to meet statutory standard | State: The court had reviewed files and materials and entered statutory findings | Court: Insufficient evidence—no evidence or permissible proffer was presented at the hearing to support findings of unfitness or best interests |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying motion to set aside default | Mother: Missed hearing due to confusion; had meritorious defense and prior consistent participation | State: (Implicit) denial appropriate because Mother missed hearing | Court: Default was improperly entered; relief on appeal reversed and case remanded (district court erred in denying relief where no evidentiary basis existed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155 (2007) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)
- State v. Hall, 287 Kan. 139 (2008) (appellate review on due process questions is unlimited)
- In re B.D.-Y., 286 Kan. 686 (2008) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility on sufficiency review)
- In re K.W., 45 Kan. App. 2d 353 (2011) (standard for reviewing termination: whether evidence, viewed favorably to State, could have clearly and convincingly supported termination)
- Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 301 Kan. 916 (2015) (statutory interpretation is a question of law with unlimited appellate review)
- In re A.S., 12 Kan. App. 2d 594 (1988) (courts may take judicial notice of their own court files)