People Ex Rel. A.K.A.-C.
2017 SD 38
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Child first entered DSS custody in March 2012 after Mother (B.W.) overdosed; custody was later returned and family planned to move to Michigan.
- A second A&N proceeding began in December 2012 after Mother left Child with a coworker and repeatedly tested positive for methamphetamine; Mother had multiple treatment failures and criminal convictions in 2013.
- Mother was placed in drug court and other treatment programs; she was returned custody in July 2014 but later absconded, failed a UA, and was terminated from drug court in November 2014, resulting in probation revocation and reinstatement of a two-year penitentiary sentence.
- DSS filed the current (third) A&N proceeding (Oct 2014); the State sought termination of Mother’s parental rights at an April 10, 2015 dispositional hearing.
- The circuit court took judicial notice of the two prior A&N files and Mother’s 2013 criminal file, found reasonable efforts were made, concluded Mother remained chemically dependent, and terminated parental rights as the least restrictive alternative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDCL 16-22-6 barred consideration of drug-court evidence in A&N dispositional hearing | Court relied on inadmissible drug-court statements/reports in violation of SDCL 16-22-6 | The statute’s evidentiary limits do not bar consideration of program participation or termination in dispositional proceedings | Court affirmed: Mother failed to identify specific findings based on improper drug-court evidence; taking judicial notice of prior files and noting participation/termination was not reversible error |
| Whether termination was the least restrictive alternative in Child’s best interests | Termination was not necessary; court relied heavily on drug-court evidence and ignored Mother’s efforts/services | Child had been out of Mother’s care for years, Mother repeatedly used drugs despite substantial services and incarceration limited reunification; termination was appropriate | Court affirmed termination: findings that reasonable efforts were made and that less restrictive options were insufficient were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. J.S.B., Jr., 691 N.W.2d 611 (S.D. 2005) (statutory-interpretation de novo review)
- Interest of S.H.E., 824 N.W.2d 420 (S.D. 2012) (parent’s incarceration can limit DSS’s ability to reunify)
- People ex rel. D.T., 667 N.W.2d 694 (S.D. 2003) (courts will not force a child to wait indefinitely for parental rehabilitation)