Blythe P. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS
524 P.3d 238
Alaska2023Background
- Gene, a three-year-old in OCS custody, was initially placed with Robert and Vivian (family friends) after removal from his parents.
- Robert and Vivian obtained an emergency foster license but were told Timothy (who had barrier crimes) could not live on their property; OCS later found Timothy was present and revoked/closed their license.
- OCS transferred Gene to Kathryn (a cousin by marriage) and closed Robert and Vivian’s license; Kathryn was exempt from licensing as a relative and thus met placement requirements.
- Blythe (Gene’s mother) sought judicial review under AS 47.10.080(s)/CINA Rule 19.1(b), arguing the transfer was contrary to Gene’s best interests and challenging Kathryn’s classification as an adult family member.
- The superior court affirmed the transfer, applying an abuse-of-discretion review and concluding Kathryn had placement priority; the Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutory clear-and-convincing standard governs transfers and overruling Zander B. to the extent inconsistent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for OCS placement transfers | Blythe: AS 47.10.080(s) requires challengers prove by clear and convincing evidence that a transfer is contrary to the child's best interests | OCS: Sometimes challengers must also show OCS abused its discretion (e.g., transfers to higher-priority placements or due to licensing) | Clear-and-convincing standard governs all placement transfers; challengers need not also prove abuse of discretion; overruled Zander B. to the extent inconsistent |
| Whether superior court applied correct standard | Blythe: court failed to apply clear-and-convincing review and focused on whether staying with Kathryn post-transfer was best | OCS: court did consider best interests and any error was harmless | Court did not apply AS 47.10.080(s) properly; reversal required because the court did not assess effect of the move under the correct standard |
| Classification of Kathryn and placement priority | Blythe: Kathryn is not an "adult family member" and court misclassified her | OCS/superior court: Kathryn was an adult family member with priority | Kathryn is not an adult family member but is a family friend exempt from licensing; classification error was harmless because Robert/Vivian forfeited preference by violating license terms, so Kathryn was preferred |
| Sibling-presumption and visitation/sibling placement | Blythe: court ignored statutory presumption favoring maintenance of sibling relationships and impact of separation | OCS: court considered sibling bonds and Kathryn facilitated visits | Court adequately applied the sibling-presumption (it concerns relationships, not a conclusive presumption of shared placement) and found Kathryn supported sibling contact |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.L.J., 717 P.2d 376 (Alaska 1986) (adopted abuse-of-discretion review for OCS placement decisions generally)
- State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs. v. Zander B., 474 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2020) (applied abuse-of-discretion review to a transfer challenge; partially overruled here)
- Diego K. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 411 P.3d 622 (Alaska 2018) (discussed de novo review of whether factual findings satisfy CINA statutes)
- Buntin v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 487 P.3d 595 (Alaska 2021) (articulated standards for overruling precedent)