Robert G. v. Dcs, R.G., 1 CA-JV 17-0274

Father is the biological parent of R.G., born July 2015; DCS removed the child in August 2015 and filed a dependency petition alleging abuse, neglect, and abandonment.
Father failed to appear at prior dependency proceedings without good cause; the court adjudicated R.G. dependent in Father’s absence.
DCS moved to terminate Father’s parental rights for abandonment; Father was repeatedly given required notices and FORM III admonitions about appearance and consequences.
The court ordered Father to appear in person at the severance hearing; Father requested telephonic appearance three days before the hearing asserting new employment in Tucson. The court denied the request.
Father did not appear in person; the hearing proceeded with counsel present, evidence was presented, and the court terminated Father’s parental rights finding abandonment by clear and convincing evidence and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
On appeal, Father challenged the court’s refusal to allow telephonic testimony and alleged a due process violation; he did not challenge the findings of abandonment or best interests on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (DCS)	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by requiring Father’s in-person presence rather than permitting telephonic testimony	Father argued in-person presence was unnecessary and telephonic appearance would suffice; requiring in-person attendance jeopardized his employment and was unreasonable given his indigence	DCS argued the court acted within its discretion, having given notice and specifically ordered in-person attendance, and Rule 42 permits but does not require telephonic appearances	Court held no abuse of discretion; court permissibly required in-person attendance after proper notice and order
Whether denying telephonic testimony violated Father’s procedural due process rights	Father argued denial deprived him of reasonable opportunity to be heard	DCS argued Father received all required notices/admonitions and counsel was present to represent him at the hearing	Court held no due process violation: notice and counsel present satisfied procedural due process despite Father’s absence
Whether Father waived appellate challenges to abandonment and best-interests findings	Father did not contest those findings on appeal	DCS argued issues were waived	Court held Father waived challenges to those findings by not contesting them on appeal

Willie G. v. ADES, 211 Ariz. 231 (court did not abuse discretion denying telephonic appearance in similar circumstances)
Manuel M. v. ADES, 218 Ariz. 205 (termination may proceed on the record when parent fails to appear after proper notice)
City of Phoenix v. Fields, 219 Ariz. 568 (appellate courts generally do not address arguments raised below but not in the court of appeals)
Miller v. Superior Court (State), 189 Ariz. 127 (standard for abuse of discretion—untenable grounds)
Schickner v. Schickner, 237 Ariz. 194 (abuse of discretion standard and review)
Brenda D. v. DCS, 242 Ariz. 150 (superior court retains discretion to determine what constitutes good cause to miss a hearing)
J.D.S. v. Franks, 182 Ariz. 81 (procedural due process requires reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard)