Due Process and Parental Presence: Balancing Rights in Termination Proceedings

Introduction

Matter of Justina C. M. J. (2025 NYSlipOp 01805) arises from consolidated Family Court proceedings in Westchester County under Social Services Law § 384-b, in which the Westchester County Department of Social Services (the petitioner) sought to terminate the parental rights of Chantilly J. (the mother) to four children—Justina C. M. J., Stephen F. L. J., Maximus L. J., and Amanda J. O.—alleging that the mother’s mental illness rendered her unable to provide proper care. The Family Court (Morales-Horowitz, J.) found the allegations proven, terminated the mother’s rights, and transferred custody for adoption. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed and remitted for a new hearing, holding that the mother was denied her due process right to be present in significant portions of the hearing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Department dismissed as academic the portion of the appeal concerning Amanda J. O. (who reached age 18) but found that the Family Court’s ruling that the mother’s mental illness made her unable to care for the children was not academic because it carried a stigmatizing record. The appellate panel held that:

The Family Court improperly commenced the hearing in the mother’s absence despite her pro se status and a medical directive to quarantine.
The court abused its discretion by denying her requests for additional time to review evidence, obtain transcripts, consult her legal advisor, and by expelling her from the courtroom without warning.
These procedural failures violated the mother’s due process right to be present, requiring reversal and remittal for a new hearing after counsel is assigned or retained.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Matter of Jacqueline E.S.B. [Daniel B.] (160 AD3d 828): Reaffirmed that parents have a due process right to be present at termination proceedings, subject to balancing against the child’s interest in prompt adjudication.
Matter of Laticia B. (156 AD2d 681): Recognized that parental presence is not absolute but depends on a case-by-case balancing test.
Matter of Jayson C. [Kimberly C.] (219 AD3d 949): Emphasized the child’s fundamental right to timely permanency and outlined factors to gauge whether to proceed without a parent.
Matter of Jonathan N., Jr. [Jonathan N., Sr.] (194 AD3d 815) and Matter of Chloe N. [Joshua N.] (143 AD3d 1114): Held that courts must not commence hearings over pro se parents’ objections when they have legitimate medical reasons and have requested an adjournment.
Matter of Marthina S.J.Z.H.-B.R. [Calvin R.] (198 AD3d 655): Established that challenges to findings of parental inability due to mental illness are not academic even if adoption has become final.
People v Antoine (189 AD3d 1445): Defined procedural requirements when excluding a litigant from the courtroom, including issuance of clear warnings.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the dual-rights balancing test: (1) the parent’s due process right to be present at fact-finding and dispositional hearings, and (2) the child’s right to prompt and permanent placement. It found multiple procedural missteps:

Commencing in Absence: The Family Court began the hearing on December 8, 2021, over the mother’s advisor’s representation that she was under medical quarantine—without any showing of willful absence or prior pattern of nonappearance.
Denial of Adjournment and Evidence Review: On December 15, the court denied her requests for additional time to obtain new counsel, review admitted psychiatric evaluations (which bore on her mental‐illness defense), and secure transcripts—undermining her ability to meaningfully participate.
Expulsion from Courtroom: After a verbal exchange, the court ordered her removal for the remainder of the hearing without providing the mandatory warnings under 22 NYCRR 205.4(b) or considering her mental‐health diagnoses.

The Second Department concluded these actions deprived the mother of her right to a fair hearing and constituted an abuse of discretion requiring reversal without regard to the merits of the underlying petitions.

Impact

This decision reinforces strict adherence to due process in termination proceedings, particularly when a parent proceeds pro se or asserts medical necessity. Family Court judges must:

Balance parental and child interests before commencing hearings in absentia.
Carefully consider requests for adjournments, especially when mental illness or medical orders are involved.
Follow procedural safeguards (warnings, record of expulsion) before excluding a parent from courtroom.

Going forward, practitioners should use Matter of Justina C. M. J. to argue for robust procedural accommodations—such as securing counsel, adequate notice of evidence, and fair opportunity to participate—in any child‐welfare or custody proceeding.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Due Process Right to Be Present: A parent must generally be allowed to attend and participate in hearings that can terminate their parental rights, unless exceptional circumstances justify proceeding without them.
Fact-Finding vs. Dispositional Hearing: A fact-finding hearing determines whether grounds (e.g., mental illness) exist; a dispositional hearing decides what happens next (e.g., termination and adoption).
Pro Se Representation: When a party represents themselves without an attorney—courts owe extra care to ensure they understand and can participate in the process.
Mental-Health Evaluation in Evidence: Psychiatric reports carry significant weight in Social Services Law § 384-b cases and must be shared with the litigant if used against them.
Expulsion from Courtroom: Removing a party from the courtroom is a drastic measure requiring prior warning, recordation of misconduct, and consideration of the party’s capacity (including mental health).

Conclusion

Matter of Justina C. M. J. crystallizes the principle that due process in parental‐rights termination is sacrosanct and that any departure—particularly disadvantaging a pro se parent or one with mental‐health concerns—mandates reversal. Family Courts must balance the parent’s right to presence against a child’s need for permanence, adhere to procedural safeguards when excluding litigants, and provide fair access to evidence and counsel. The decision underscores the judiciary’s duty to ensure that the gravest of family law measures—termination of parental rights—be carried out with the utmost respect for fundamental procedural fairness.