In the Interest of K.E., 272 P.3d 28

Minors K.E. and S.D.E. entered state custody in April 2008; father imprisoned in Georgia for cocaine-related offenses for most of their lives.
Trial court previously terminated father’s parental rights in 2010, then reversed on appeal; remand for vacatur.
State filed new petitions to terminate after remand; service perfected November 26, 2010.
Termination hearing held December 8, 2010; father unavailable to attend in person, appeared by telephone from Georgia.
Judge denied telephonic sworn testimony but allowed father to listen; trial proceeded with three witnesses supporting termination.
Court terminated parental rights after finding father failed to rebut a statutory presumption of unfitness; adoption in children’s best interests favored.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of telephonic testimony violated due process	Father’s due process rights demanded telephonic testimony under 60-243(a)	State argues no due process violation; statute allows testimony outside open court with safeguards	No due process violation; denial was harmless error given lack of good cause and safeguards; statute applied implicitly; district court affirmed

In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155 (2007) (due process and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (must balance interests and safeguards against disruption)
Davenport Pastures v. Bd. of Morris County Comm'rs, 291 Kan. 132 (2010) (unlimited review for due process questions of law)
State v. Gonzalez, 290 Kan. 747 (2010) (abuse of discretion when court fails to apply controlling law; harmless if non-constitutional)
In re Care & Treatment of Sipe, 44 Kan. App. 2d 584 (2010) (burden of proof on moving party; standard for change in status quo)