Court Opinion

ID: 9524965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:58:48.375004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:24.847353
License: Public Domain

OTIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot subscribe to a rule which in effect justifies a denial of due process by finding that had this mother been present at the hearing which permanently eliminated her parental rights, the likelihood of her prevailing would have been minimal.
Here the mother’s whereabouts were known, she was soon to be released and available for trial, and was anxious to retain her children.
The law is well settled that failure to grant a parent an opportunity to be heard is a denial of equal protection and due process. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 657-58, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 1215-16, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). Equally important, the ability to confront and cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental due process right which no attorney can possibly vindicate without the presence of the parent who is the subject of the litigation. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-71, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1020-22, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970).
I submit that to prejudge the outcome is wholly inappropriate and irrelevant to the critical question of whether the basic right to a fair trial should be protected. I would grant a new trial.