In Re the Protective Proceedings of Tammy J.
270 P.3d 805
Alaska2012Background
- Tammy J. is a developmentally disabled adult whose parents seek to be appointed her guardian.
- A probate master recommended appointing the Office of Public Advocacy as Tammy's full guardian with conservator authority; the superior court adopted this recommendation.
- Tammy's parents argue this overrides the statutory parental preference and violates their constitutional right to parent.
- The court relied on AS 13.26.145 and AS 13.26.090-.150 to prioritize Tammy's best interests over parental priority.
- The parents appeal on two grounds: (1) improper override of parental priority under AS 13.26.145 and (2) violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment for an adult developmentally disabled child.
- The court affirmatively held that the superior court did not abuse its discretion and did not violate Tammy's parents' due process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse its discretion under AS 13.26.145 by appointing a public guardian over Tammy's parents? | Tammy's parents contend parental priority should control. | Court properly weighed best interests and overrided priority where appropriate. | No abuse; appointment of public guardian affirmed. |
| Does constitutional due process require clear and convincing evidence that parents are unfit to override parental priority for an adult developmentally disabled child? | Parents claim due process protects parental decision-making for an adult child. | Legislature permits override for best interests without showing parental unfitness. | No due process violation; state may determine guardianship based on best interests. |
| Are written findings required when the court overrides parental priority under AS 13.26.145(f)? | Not necessary if best interests are evident. | Statute requires written findings when overriding. | Written findings provided; override properly documented. |
Key Cases Cited
- H.C.S. v. Cmty. Advocacy Project of Alaska, Inc., 42 P.3d 1093 (Alaska 2002) (guidelines for guardian selection and standard of review in Alaska)
- Evans v. McTaggart, 88 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2004) (discusses parental preference and overriding guardianship)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental liberty interest in child custody; balance with state interests)
- McCurdy v. Dodd, 352 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2003) (extends discussion on parental rights for adult dependent children)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (due process framework and balancing rights and interests)