The Denver Department of Human Services moved to terminate mother’s legal relationship with her child. The juvenile court denied mother’s motion to continue the termination hearing. In accordance with a juvenile court directive, the court held the contested termination hearing via the electronic platform Webex, and it terminated mother’s parental rights.

On appeal, mother contended that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her request to continue the termination hearing because the need to hold the hearing via Webex constituted good cause. Because the child was under age 6 when the dependency and neglect petition was filed, the expedited permanency planning provisions applied. Therefore, mother had to show good cause for the continuance and that the delay would be in the child’s best interests. Here, mother failed to show that the Webex hearing would create a fundamentally unfair proceeding and thus did not establish good cause. She also did not show that delaying the hearing was in the child’s best interests. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion.

Mother also argued that the juvenile court violated her right to due process by conducting the termination hearing via Webex. However, mother received notice of the hearing and had the opportunity to be heard, and she was represented by court-appointed counsel throughout the proceeding. Further, the juvenile court provided mother with substantially similar procedures to those available at an in-person termination hearing. Therefore, mother was afforded due process.

Mother further argued that the juvenile court erred by determining that an allocation of parental responsibilities (APR) to the child’s godmother wasn’t a less drastic alternative to termination. Here, mother was unfit to care for the child, and an APR would not provide the child with the permanency and stability he needed. Therefore, the juvenile court did not err.

The judgment was affirmed.

A magistrate terminated the parent-child legal relationship between mother and the child. Mother sought juvenile court review of the termination order, but the juvenile court denied her request because it was untimely.

On appeal, mother contended that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her petition for review of the magistrate’s termination order. A juvenile court has jurisdiction to consider a late-filed petition for review in dependency and neglect cases when the delay results from excusable neglect. Here, mother’s counsel’s reasons for the late filing were that (1) she mistakenly believed the filing deadline was 14 days rather than seven, because that timeframe applies to other proceedings under the Children’s Code; and (2) she had to attend three medical appointments related to her high-risk pregnancy and represent another client in a termination hearing lasting a day and a half. A counsel’s failure to act because of carelessness, negligence, or other work obligations is not excusable neglect, and the existence of different deadlines is not an unusual circumstance that would cause a reasonably careful person to neglect a duty. Further, counsel’s need for medical care was not so physically or mentally disabling as to render her unable to file for the requested relief or seek an extension of time. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.

The judgment was affirmed.