Amy M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
320 P.3d 253
Alaska2013Background
- Mother Amy M. has a nearly decade-long history of crack cocaine use; four children (including Kadin) tested positive for cocaine at birth and prior children were placed with relatives.
- OCS previously sought termination of parental rights for another child (Darcy); Sherman’s rights were terminated and that record was part of the background here.
- Kadin was born cocaine-positive in February 2012; OCS took emergency custody and placed him with his maternal grandmother (Vallerie), who was later approved to adopt him and Darcy.
- OCS developed case plans requiring residential substance-abuse treatment, abstinence, assessments, and releases for referral; Amy repeatedly failed to complete assessments, refused releases, missed appointments, and had intermittent contact with OCS.
- OCS filed to terminate Amy’s parental rights three months after Kadin’s birth; a two-day termination trial was held when Kadin was eight months old and the superior court terminated Amy’s rights.
- On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court reviewed whether Amy failed to remedy the conditions within a reasonable time, whether OCS made reasonable reunification efforts, and whether termination was in Kadin’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amy) | Defendant's Argument (State/OCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amy failed to remedy conduct within a reasonable time | Was not given reasonable time; only 8 months after birth / petition filed 3 months after birth | Long history of relapse, failed treatment attempts, refusal to sign releases, limited recent progress — unlikely to be stable within a reasonable time | Court: No clear error — history + post-birth conduct justified finding she failed to remedy within a reasonable time |
| Whether OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify | OCS had minimal contact, few referrals, didn’t present case plan; efforts were insufficient | OCS repeatedly urged assessment/treatment over years, made referrals when possible, efforts limited by Amy’s refusal and intermittent contact | Court: No error — considering multi-year efforts and Amy’s noncooperation, OCS’s efforts were reasonable |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Recent sobriety and placement with grandmother meant more time would not harm child; reunification preferable | Child bonded to grandmother; mother needs long residential treatment (~1 year) — too long for infant’s need for permanency and bonding | Court: No clear error — termination favored child’s need for permanency and bonding given timeline for effective treatment |
| Use of prior termination proceedings/evidence | Prior findings about third party (Sherman) should not be used against Amy | Prior record and court’s prior findings are relevant to Amy’s history; Amy waived contemporaneous objection to use of that record at trial | Court: Admissibility waived by failure to object; court relied on Amy’s overall history, not solely prior findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (supports termination where parent failed to remedy substance abuse in short time given history)
- Christina J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 254 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2011) (reasonable time is determined by child’s best interests; no fixed-month rule)
- Sherman B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 290 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2012) (prior termination proceedings and related findings discussed)
- Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 289 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2012) (deference to superior court credibility findings)
- Erica A. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 66 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2003) (parent’s history is relevant as predictor of future behavior)
- Martin N. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 79 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2003) (child’s need for permanency limits time afforded to parent)
- Thea G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 291 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2013) (statutory best-interest factors for termination)
- Kent V. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 233 P.3d 597 (Alaska 2010) (child’s best interests are paramount in termination proceedings)