Kelly M. v. Karen K., Peter K., B.L., 1 CA-JV 16-0022

B.L., born 2008, was cared for by maternal grandparents Karen and Peter since CPS placed the child with them in Feb 2013; grandparents later filed petitions to terminate parental rights of both parents for abandonment.
Kelly (mother) appeared at the initial severance hearing; the court set a mediation (Jan 13, 2016) and a telephonic pretrial conference (Jan 20, 2016) and the initial hearing minute entry provided the call-in number and warned that failure to appear could be deemed an admission and permit proceedings in the parent’s absence.
Kelly did not appear at the Jan 20 pretrial conference; her counsel appeared but did not know why Kelly was absent; the court proceeded, heard testimony from Karen, and found abandonment and that severance was in the child’s best interest.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights and vested custody and financial responsibility in Karen; Kelly appealed the severance judgment asserting the court erred in proceeding in her absence.
The record showed Kelly was properly served and warned; Kelly argued she had good cause because she was not endorsed on the minute entry, lacked Form 3, and contacted counsel after the hearing seeking the call-in number.
The juvenile court denied Kelly’s postjudgment motion to set aside the default; the appellate court reviewed whether the court abused its discretion in proceeding without Kelly and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by proceeding with severance hearing after Kelly failed to appear at pretrial conference	Kelly: Good cause for nonappearance — attended prior hearings, not endorsed on minute entry, no Form 3, called counsel after hearing to get call-in number	State/Grandparents: Kelly was properly served, warned of consequences, and failed to show good cause or a meritorious defense	Court: No abuse of discretion; Kelly had notice and warning, did not show excusable neglect or meritorious defense, so proceeding in her absence was proper

Lashonda M. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 210 Ariz. 77 (App. 2005) (standard of review for juvenile court discretion)
Quigley v. Tucson City Court, 132 Ariz. 35 (1982) (review for abuse of discretion)
Christy A. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 217 Ariz. 299 (App. 2007) (failure to appear with proper notice may constitute waiver/admission)
Ugalde v. Burke, 204 Ariz. 455 (App. 2003) (trial court discretion to determine good cause)
Richas v. Superior Court, 133 Ariz. 512 (1982) (elements for relief: excusable neglect and meritorious defense)
Ulibarri v. Gerstenberger, 178 Ariz. 151 (App. 1993) (definition of excusable neglect)
Monica C. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 211 Ariz. 89 (App. 2005) (no mandatory requirement to provide Form 3; lack of form not fundamental error if notice existed)
Adrian E. v. Ariz. Dep’t. of Econ. Sec., 215 Ariz. 96 (App. 2007) (appellate assumption in absence of transcript)
Coconino Pulp & Paper Co. v. Marvin, 83 Ariz. 117 (1957) (mere forgetfulness does not disturb judgment)
Hackin v. First Nat. Bank of Ariz., 5 Ariz. App. 379 (App. 1967) (client’s failure to keep in touch with counsel precludes complaint about proceedings in absence)
Dawson v. Withcombe, 216 Ariz. 84 (App. 2007) (failure to assert meritorious defense waives it on appeal)