Payton S. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
349 P.3d 162
Alaska2015Background
- Parents Payton S. and Effie B. have long histories of alcohol abuse; OCS removed their daughters Adelaide (b.2007) and Angelica (b.2009) after reports the parents were intoxicated and the children unsupervised, and took custody of infant Payton Jr. shortly after his 2013 birth.
- OCS filed CINA petitions; an adjudication/disposition hearing occurred Nov. 4, 2010, but the parents were served that same day (insufficient ICWA/CINA notice) and did not attend; the court adjudicated the girls CINA based on OCS’s offer of proof.
- Parents were appointed counsel weeks later and participated in many proceedings; they later stipulated the girls remained CINA, then withdrew; OCS pursued termination petitions for all three children.
- The December 2013 termination trial included testimony about persistent parental binge drinking, failure to complete treatment, instances of leaving children unsupervised, and the children’s special needs (including Angelica’s encephalitis and Adelaide’s behavioral problems).
- OCS presented two experts; the court qualified Sharon Fleming (OCS regional manager) as an ICWA expert and relied on her testimony that returning the children would likely cause serious emotional or physical harm; the court terminated parental rights in May 2014.
- On appeal parents argued (1) lack of proper notice at adjudication violated due process; and (2) trial findings (CINA status, failure to remedy, ICWA expert qualification, likelihood of serious harm, and best interests) were erroneous. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Payton/Effie’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudication/disposition entered without proper ICWA/CINA notice and before counsel violated due process | Lack of timely notice and absence of counsel prejudiced parents and may have discouraged engagement | Any prejudice was cured by later proceedings: counsel appointed soon after, many hearings followed, and termination trial used full evidence | Error to enter initial order without proper notice, but no reversible due process violation because parents showed no actual prejudice and subsequent proceedings eliminated any likely effect |
| Whether the children were properly found CINA (substance abuse ground) | Parents claimed insufficient evidence — cited single episode; argued no present harm | Evidence of chronic binge drinking, multiple diagnoses, failure to complete treatment, and history of leaving children unsupervised supported impairment and risk | Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supports CINA finding under AS 47.10.011(10) (parental substance abuse) |
| Whether parents failed, within a reasonable time, to remedy conditions placing children at risk | Parents argued they attempted services / cultural practices mitigated conduct | Parents repeatedly failed to complete treatment, missed services, prioritized drinking and travel over parenting | Affirmed: parents did not remedy conditions; failure-to-remedy finding supported by record |
| Whether OCS experts qualified under ICWA and supported finding that return would likely cause serious harm | Parents challenged expert qualification (lack of cultural expertise / file-based opinion) and sufficiency | Fleming’s education, supervisory OCS experience, training in Alaska Native issues, and prior ICWA qualifications supported qualification; expert testimony combined with lay evidence supported serious-harm finding | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion qualifying Fleming as an ICWA expert; beyond-a-reasonable-doubt finding of likely serious emotional/physical harm supported |
| Whether termination was in the children’s best interests | Parents argued they could parent and preserve cultural ties | Court found children’s medical/behavioral needs, stable foster placements (willing to adopt), and parents’ instability favored permanency | Affirmed: best-interests finding not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Emma D. v. State, 322 P.3d 842 (Alaska 2014) (standard of review for CINA factual findings)
- Paula E. v. State, 276 P.3d 422 (Alaska 2012) (actual prejudice required to show due process violation from inadequate notice)
- D.M. v. State, 995 P.2d 205 (Alaska 2000) (late or inadequate notice may deny due process but must show prejudice)
- Lucy J. v. State, 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (qualifications for ICWA expert and prior treatment of Sharon Fleming’s qualifications)
- Marcia V. v. State, 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska 2009) (use of BIA guidelines to evaluate ICWA expert qualifications)
- L.G. v. State, 14 P.3d 946 (Alaska 2000) (aggregating expert and lay testimony to meet ICWA’s serious-harm requirement)
- Ben M. v. State, 204 P.3d 1013 (Alaska 2009) (expert testimony need not prove the case alone; it may support court’s conclusion)
- Christina J. v. State, 254 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2011) (best-interests standard and review)
- Ralph H. v. State, 255 P.3d 1003 (Alaska 2011) (failure-to-remedy is factual determination for trial court)
- Thea G. v. State, 291 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2013) (ICWA expert not required where grounds do not implicate cultural bias, e.g., clear substance abuse)