In re Kaylianna C., 166 A.3d 976

Father lived in Massachusetts; paternity was established after the child-protection case began and he had met the child only a few times.
The child had been harmed while in the mother’s custody; father was largely absent and did not meaningfully engage in reunification or comply with visitation.
Father attended an earlier jeopardy hearing and agreed to a jeopardy order; he was served with the Department’s petition to terminate parental rights and notified of a three-day termination hearing.
Father was not present when the termination hearing began; his counsel attended and did not seek a continuance or object to proceeding; the Department presented the caseworker’s testimony and prior records.
The court orally announced termination of the father’s parental rights; six days later the father filed a Rule 59 motion asserting his car had been stolen the night before the hearing and that he would have testified; the motion gave no supporting proof or offer of the testimony he would have given.
The court summarily denied the Rule 59 motion, entered written findings and judgment terminating parental rights, and the father appealed only on procedural (due process) grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether terminating father's rights despite his absence violated due process	Father: absence was involuntary (vehicle stolen) and he was deprived of opportunity to be heard	State: father had notice, counsel was present, father did not seek continuance or present evidence or an offer of proof	Court: No due-process violation; father failed to explain how his testimony would have changed outcome and made no offer of proof
Whether denial of Rule 59 motion or summary disposition violated procedural fairness	Father: court should have granted new trial or provided alternate opportunity to be heard	State: motion lacked substantiation, was untimely, and contained no offer of proof	Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion; written and oral findings satisfied Rule 52 requirements

Arundel Valley, LLC v. Branch River Plastics, Inc., 151 A.3d 938 (Me. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of a new trial)
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012) (due process protections in termination proceedings and need for offer of proof when absent parent fails to appear)
In re Randy Scott B., 511 A.2d 450 (Me. 1986) (requiring showing of prejudice from absence to overturn termination)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
In re Mark M., 581 A.2d 807 (Me. 1990) (standard of appellate review for procedural rulings)