885 P.2d 355 (Colo.App. 1994), 93CA1969, People In Interest of C.G.
|Citation:||885 P.2d 355|
|Opinion Judge:||CASEBOLT Judge.|
|Party Name:||The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellee, In the Interest of C.G., a Child, and Concerning K.G., Respondent-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||George H. Hass, County Atty., Linda K. Dahn, Asst. County Atty., Fort Collins, for petitioner-appellee. John Traphagan Vap, P.C., John T. Vap, Loveland, for respondent-appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||MARQUEZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur.|
|Case Date:||October 20, 1994|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fourth Division|
K.G. (father) appeals a trial court judgment terminating the parent-child legal relationship between him and his child, C.G. We affirm.
At the time of the termination hearing, father was in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections serving a sentence on a felony conviction. Because father was indigent, his attorney filed a motion seeking an order requiring the Fremont County sheriff to transport father to the hearing in Larimer County at State expense.
The trial court denied the motion finding that the State had no constitutional or statutory obligation to provide the requested transportation. It further found that father would be present at the hearing through counsel who could call witnesses to testify on
father's behalf and could cross-examine the State's witnesses. The trial court ordered that father could present his testimony and submit rebuttal testimony by deposition or affidavit.
The termination hearing was held as scheduled, and father's parental rights were terminated. During the hearing, father's attorney cross-examined the State's witnesses, but he did not offer any direct testimony through deposition, affidavit, or otherwise. Furthermore, counsel did not seek to submit rebuttal testimony.
On appeal, father contends that the trial court's order denying the motion to transport him to the termination hearing at State expense denied his due process rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment and Colo. Const. art. II, §§ 3 & 25. He also contends that the trial court's order violated his right to equal protection of the laws under Colo. Const. art. II, § 25, because an unincarcerated parent could attend such a hearing. He also contends the trial court erred in refusing to consider his request for payment of the costs of his own deposition made during the hearing on the motion to transport. We disagree with all of these contentions.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP