People ex rel. Z.M.

         As Modified January 23, 2020.

Page 331

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 332

         El Paso County District Court No. 17JV537 Honorable Jessica L. Curtis, Judge.

          Diana K. May, County Attorney, Melanie Douglas, Special Assistant County Attorney, Gunnison, Colorado, for Appellee.

          Anna N.H. Ulrich,Cd Litem.

          Steven E. Baum, Office of Respondent Parents' Counsel, Ainsley E. Bochniak, Office of Respondent Parents' Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant.

         OPINION

          BERGER, JUDGE

         [¶1] In this dependency and neglect proceeding, J.F. (father) appeals the termination of his parent-child legal relationship with G.F. and Z.M. (the children).^[1] He argues that the lack of a complete record on appeal denied him due process and that the juvenile court erred when it determined that there were no less drastic alternatives to termination.

         [¶2] C.A.R. 10(f)(2) provides:

If any material part of the trial court record is omitted or missing from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein after the record is transmitted to the appellate court, the appellate court, on motion or of its own initiative, may order that the supplemental record be certified and transmitted.

         [¶3] We address a question of first impression in Colorado: What is the meaning of the word "material" in C.A.R. 10(f)(2)? Because we conclude both that father failed to demonstrate that the missing portions of the record were material and that the record supports the juvenile court's findings, we affirm.

         I. Background

         [¶4] The El Paso County Department of Human Services moved for an adjudication that the children were dependent or neglected by father. The court granted the motion, and the children were placed with maternal aunt and uncle. The court also adopted a treatment plan for father.

         [¶5] The guardian ad litem (GAL) later moved to terminate father's parental rights, alleging that father had not complied with his treatment plan. After a hearing, the juvenile court granted the motion.

         [¶6] Father then appealed to this court. He designated thirty-two hearing transcripts for the appeal. Several months later, it was discovered that the record was missing six of the requested hearing transcripts.

         [¶7] Father moved this court to supplement the record, and this court granted the motion. The record was supplemented, but father's counsel found that three transcripts remained missing. Father's counsel again moved to supplement the record and then amended that motion to request just two transcripts.

         [¶8] The court denied father's second motion "with leave to refile with a statement of materiality" under C.A.R. 10(f)(2). A few days later, the Chief Judge of this court entered a new order deferring a ruling on father's request to supplement the record to the merits division and directing father to "address C.A.R. 10(f)(2)'s materiality standard in his opening brief." The parties then completed appellate briefing.

         [¶9] After briefing was completed, a judge of this court ordered the juvenile court to supplement the record with the remaining transcripts. In response, the juvenile court submitted an affidavit from the transcriptionist assigned to the case. The affidavit stated that "there was no recording ...