Alex H. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
2017 Alas. LEXIS 14
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Alex H., incarcerated after conviction for multiple counts of first-degree sexual abuse of his three children, sought transport from the Fairbanks jail to attend an OCS parental-rights termination trial in October 2015.
- OCS filed to terminate Alex’s and Maeve’s parental rights after allegations and forensic interviews showing long‑term sexual abuse; Alex was later convicted in criminal court and the children testified there.
- One week before the scheduled termination trial Alex moved under AS 33.30.081(f) to require DPS to transport him for in-person attendance; he stated he would not testify but wanted in‑person attendance to consult with counsel and confront witnesses.
- DPS opposed, citing heavy logistical burdens and short notice; the superior court asked for any additional input, heard argument, and denied transport on the first day of trial.
- The superior court later terminated both parents’ rights; Alex appealed, arguing (1) statutory abuse of discretion in denying transport, (2) the court failed to consider required factors, and (3) denial violated his due process rights.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed: it found the trial court considered the relevant factors presented, that omission of unraised factors was waived and not plain error, and that due process did not require transport under the Mathews balancing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alex) | Defendant's Argument (State/OCS/DPS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court abused discretion under AS 33.30.081(f) by denying transport | Court misapplied law and reached wrong result; in‑person attendance was essential for just disposition and trial rights | Denial proper because Alex wouldn’t testify, transport added little value, and DPS showed substantial burdens on short notice | No abuse of discretion: court weighed the factors presented and reasonably denied transport |
| Whether the court erred by failing to consider all Richard B. factors | Court should have considered all eight Richard B. factors sua sponte | Alex failed to present those factors below; court considered the factors raised and relevant ones overlapped | Waived: Alex did not raise all Richard B. factors below; omission not plain error because unconsidered factors would not likely change outcome |
| Whether denial of transport violated due process (Mathews balancing) | Parental rights and fair‑trial rights required in‑person attendance; telephonic participation endangered counsel access and confrontation rights | Mathews balance favors the State given (1) limited probable added value of in‑person presence, (2) heavy logistical/cost burden from last‑minute request, and (3) low likelihood that presence would change outcome given criminal convictions and issues presented | No due process violation: Mathews factors balanced—private interest strong but additional protections unlikely to reduce risk of erroneous deprivation and government interests weigh against transport |
| Whether the court penalized Alex for invoking the Fifth Amendment by relying on his decision not to testify | Using his decision not to testify against him is an unconstitutional penalty | The statute permits consideration of whether presence is ‘‘essential’’; choosing not to testify legitimately reduces the necessity of transport but does not penalize him | No penalty: declining to transport due to lesser necessity when defendant won’t testify is not a constitutional penalty; protections remained via counsel and telephonic participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Richard B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 71 P.3d 811 (Alaska 2003) (adopted factors for deciding prisoner transport under AS 33.30.081(f) and applied Mathews analysis)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (established three‑part test for what process is due)
- Seth D. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1222 (Alaska 2008) (applied Mathews in prisoner‑transport parental‑termination context)
- E.J.S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 754 P.2d 749 (Alaska 1988) (upheld telephonic participation without due process violation where counsel effectively represented client)
- Fink v. Municipality of Anchorage, 379 P.3d 183 (Alaska 2016) (standard for abuse of discretion review)