in denying Rodgers’s motion for new trial. In her brief, Rodgers argues there is “some authority that when a defendant establishes that she did not receive notice of a trial setting, she need not satisfy the other Craddock requirements.” Relying on this authority, Rodgers argues that, because she did not receive notice of the trial setting that resulted in the termination of her parental rights, she need not establish any of the Craddock requirements. The cases Rodgers cites are post-answer default judgment eases-i.e., cases in which the defendant filed an answer but was not given notice of a hearing date or trial setting. When a defendant files an answer, she is entitled to notice of hearings or trial settings. LBL Oil Co. v. Int’l Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390, 390-91 (Tex.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Lopez v. Lopez, 757 S.W.2d 721, 723
holding that because the due process clause in the federal constitution is applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment the right is also guaranteed to defendants pursuant to the identical provision in article i section 5 of the hawaii constitution holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding that an agencys rulings with respect to whether a party was afforded the process it is due under the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution are subject to de novo review holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding that once defendant made appearance in cause he is entitled to notice of trial setting as matter of due process under fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution