K.W. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 12 N.E.3d 241

The State sought to terminate the parental rights of C.C. and KW's father for KW's CHINS/TPR history.
On the termination hearing day, C.C. was incarcerated; her counsel sought a continuance to await release, which the trial court denied.
The TPR hearing proceeded in C.C.'s absence, resulting in a termination order as to C.C. and KW's father.
C.C. appealed: denial of continuance violated due process; ineffective assistance of counsel for not pursuing transport or telephonic participation.
Indiana appellate review vacated the Court of Appeals, addressing only the continuance denial; the court concluded the denial was an abuse of discretion.
Court applied and weighed factors related to incarcerated parental attendance and participation, emphasizing the right to be heard meaningfully.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion denying a continuance?	C.C. shows good cause to attend post-release.	Court may balance interests; delay would be minimal.	Yes, abuse of discretion; denial prejudiced C.C.'s due process rights.
Should the In re C.G. factors govern a continuance when incarceration is involved?	Factors guide whether incarcerated parent can attend.	In re C.G. test applies to transport, not continuation.	Factors helpful for review; not all applied, but supports reversal.
Does a parent's absence at a termination hearing violate due process when alternative participation is available?	Parent should be heard; alternatives should be considered.	No absolute right to present in person; other considerations exist.	Untimely absence without meaningful participation violates due process.
Was the prejudice standard satisfied to uphold an abuse finding of denial of continuance?	Prejudice can be shown by missing the parent's testimony.	Prejudice should be assessed narrowly under harmless error.	Prejudice supported by lack of meaningful participation; reversal warranted.
Should the 180-day statutory deadline affect disposition when continuances occur and incarceration is involved?	Deadline could be implicated; dismissal without prejudice possible.	Motion to dismiss unlikely; multiple continuances occurred; accountability shared.	Not controlling; deadline not weighed against C.C.; best viewed in context of due process.

In re C.G., 954 N.E.2d 910 (Ind.2011) (guides balancing factors for incarcerated parent attendance at TPR hearings)
Tillotson v. Clay Cnty. Dept. of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (advocates alternative participation methods for incarcerated parents)
Rowlett v. Vanderburgh Cnty. Office of Family & Children, 841 N.E.2d 615 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances; prejudice requirement)
Hawkins v. State, 982 N.E.2d 997 (Ind.2013) (presence requirement and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process in termination of parental rights)
Tapia v. State, 753 N.E.2d 581 (Ind.2001) (concept of substantial due process in parental rights cases)
Tillotson v. Clay Cnty. Dept. of Family & Children, 777 N.E.2d 741 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (full consideration of alternatives to physical presence)