In Re the Adoption of Hannah L.
390 P.3d 1153
Alaska2017Background
- Hannah (born 2007) is the child of Tarrah W. (mother) and Brandon L. (biological father). Tarrah later married Daniel W., who petitioned to adopt Hannah in June 2013.
- From infancy through 2012 Brandon had frequent visits, including overnights; beginning mid-2011 Hannah resisted visits and by spring 2012 Tarrah largely stopped forcing visitation.
- Tarrah placed Hannah in counseling in 2013; a counselor later recommended no contact with Brandon initially, and reunification therapy was later attempted.
- Daniel filed an adoption petition asserting Brandon’s consent was excused under AS 25.23.050 (abandonment/failure to communicate or support). Brandon filed for custody unaware of the adoption proceeding.
- The superior court denied the adoption after a bench trial, finding adoption was not in Hannah’s best interests and ordering reunification therapy; on reconsideration the court also found Brandon had not waived consent.
- Daniel appealed, arguing the reconsideration order was untimely, the court erred by not finding waiver of consent, and the court erred in its best-interests analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court’s late reconsideration order must be vacated | Daniel: order was untimely under Alaska R. Civ. P. 77(k)(4) and should be vacated | Court/Respondents: Rule 77(k) enforcement is against parties; court may clarify and issue findings on reconsideration | Court did not err; reconsideration order valid and useful for appellate review |
| Whether a consent-waiver determination is a required threshold before best-interests analysis | Daniel: court must separately determine waiver before considering best interests | Court: statute requires both prongs but a best-interests denial alone can block adoption; separate waiver finding not required when adoption fails best interests | Court: best-interests denial alone suffices; separate waiver finding not mandatory here |
| Whether the superior court erred by not applying AS 25.24.150(c)’s nine custody factors in adoption | Daniel: adoption best-interests analysis must use the nine custody factors | Court: those custody factors guide divorce/custody cases, are not mandatory in adoption; they may be considered but are not required | Court: not required to apply nine factors; permissive guidance only |
| Whether the superior court’s best-interests determination was clearly erroneous | Daniel: factual findings and weight of evidence favored adoption | Court: findings (counselor testimony, prior father–child bond, evidence of father’s efforts, and recommendation for reunification therapy) were supported by record | Court: best-interests finding against adoption affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- DeNardo v. ABC Inc. RVs Motorhomes, 51 P.3d 919 (Alaska 2002) (standard for interpreting civil rules and adopting persuasive rule of law)
- In re Adoption of S.K.L.H., 204 P.3d 320 (Alaska 2009) (adoption statutes require consent and best-interest inquiries; neither prong alone can validate an adoption)
- D.L.J. v. W.D.R., 635 P.2d 834 (Alaska 1981) (procedural discussion that consent determinations are typically made separately)
- In re J.J.J., 718 P.2d 948 (Alaska 1986) (discussed use of custody best-interests factors as guidance in best-interests analyses)
- S.O. v. W.S., 643 P.2d 997 (Alaska 1982) (describing the multifactor nature of best-interests determinations in contested adoption settings)