in the Interest of J.R.P.R., a Minor Child, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 916

Department filed petition for protection, conservatorship, and termination; Raymundo was incarcerated throughout proceedings.
Initial hearing set for June 3, 2013; counsel sought continuance due to pending DNA results; case continued to June 28, 2013.
On June 26, 2013, counsel filed motion for continuance and bench warrant request for Raymundo’s participation; Raymundo was at GEO facility in San Antonio.
Bench warrant signed July 3, 2013 for July 29, 2013 hearing; later rescheduled to July 29, then August 14, 2013.
Raymundo transferred out of Texas; neither counsel nor caseworker were notified of transfer; August 14 hearing proceeded in his absence despite ‘not ready’ announcement.
Trial court terminated parental rights based on constructive abandonment and failure to comply with service plan; Raymundo appealed challenging attendance and continuance rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did denial of continuance constitute abuse of discretion?	Raymundo’s absence justified continuance; bench warrant showed court intended presence.	Not ready announcement failed Rule 251/252 requirements; no proper offer of proof; court acted within discretion.	No abuse; denial of continuance affirmed.
Did the trial court violate due process by terminating in Raymundo’s absence without meaningful participation?	Inmate must be allowed to participate; absence prejudiced defense and due process.	Record lacked offer of proof; counsel did not request a new bench warrant; absence did not violate due process.	No due process violation; termination upheld.

In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (inmate's access balancing factors for necessity of presence)
In re R.S., 252 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (burden to justify necessity of presence for bench warrants)
In re D.C.C., 359 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (no right to in-person appearance in all proceedings when absence not adequately supported)
In re Z.C., 280 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (continuance denial not abuse where no sworn motion or proof)
In re D.W., 353 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (no abuse of discretion where whereabouts unknown and no offer of proof)
In re D.S., 82 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (inmate absent without adequate attempt to locate or compel testimony)
In re E.L.T., 93 S.W.3d 372 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (standard for abuse of discretion in continuance denial)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings and continuances)
Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1986) (continuance rule standards in termination cases)