In re J.M.B. 2025 Or. LEXIS 1740 (Or. 2025)

The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the court must provide constitutionally adequate notice to a young person of a requirement to appear in person rather than remotely before making a finding of “failure to appear”.

The court stated in relevant part: “Fundamental principles of due process require that an individual be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to deprivation of their liberty. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 US 319, 332, 348-49, 96 S Ct 893, 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976); see also Noble v. Board of Parole, 327 Or 485, 496, 964 P2d 990 (holding that a decision to designate an individual as a sex offender implicates due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Due process requires that interested parties receive notice reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise them of the pendency of an action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. Dept. of Human Services v. K. L., 272 Or App 216, 223, 355 P3d 926 (2015) (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314, 70 S Ct 652, 94 L Ed 865 (1950)). The notice required will vary with the circumstances. Id. at 223-24 (citing Walker v. Hutchinson, 352 US 112, 115, 77 S Ct 200, 1 L Ed 2d 178 (1956)).

It is undisputed that youth was out of state by the time he received notice of the hearing date, and it is unchallenged that he did not have the financial means to travel to Oregon in time for the hearing. Youth’s counsel represented that she was not aware until the day before the hearing that youth would not be allowed to appear telephonically. The state asserts that, all along, the parties had an implied understanding that youth’s in-person appearance would be required; however, that is directly contradicted by what youth was told at the February scheduling hearing. At that point, the first judge told youth that, for the actual hearing on the merits of requiring him to report, he was “welcome to appear either by Webex or in-person, whatever works the best for your calendar and your access to internet.” The record lacks any evidence that youth was ever informed that that was no longer the case until, at the earliest, his attorney informed him on the day before the hearing. We conclude that one day’s notice of a change in the required manner of appearance when youth was out of state was not sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of due process.”