Ralph H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
255 P.3d 1003
Alaska2011Background
- OCS removed Ava, Bella, Daria, Emma, and Rex in 2007 after 39 protective-service reports alleging abuse/neglect over 15 years; Faith was born Sept. 20, 2007 and later subjected to removal proceedings.
- Faith’s termination trial occurred after Rex’s termination; the superior court found Faith at substantial risk of harm and concluded termination of Ralph’s parental rights was in Faith’s best interest; Ralph sought post-termination visitation.
- Ralph and Nell had a long history of abuse/neglect dating to 1992, with prior OCS involvement and open Division files, leading to ongoing case plans and services.
- The trial court found Ralph had not timely remedied the conduct/conditions and that termination was in Faith’s best interest, and it denied post-termination visitation without prejudice; Ralph appealed.
- Ralph argues there was not clear error in the remedial-finding or best-interest finding, and that post-termination visitation should be allowed under extraordinary-circumstances; Nell did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ralph timely remedied the conduct/conditions. | Ralph had some progress but failed to remedy. | Court should defer to findings of risk and lack of timely remedy. | No; court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether termination was in Faith's best interest. | Termination necessary to protect Faith from continued harm and to secure permanency. | Potential for future reunification could argue against termination. | Yes; termination was in Faith's best interest. |
| Whether post-termination visitation was properly denied. | Continued visitation could benefit Faith and preserve bonds. | Extraordinary-circumstances not shown; permanency with foster family favored. | Yes; denial of post-termination visitation was not error. |
| Whether the court properly weighed the bond with foster parents against the parental bond. | Court failed to give adequate weight to Ralph–Faith bond. | Court appropriately weighed need for permanency and Foster-parents’ bond. | Yes; findings supported best-interest decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (regarding standards and factors for best-interest and remedy conclusions)
- Dashiell R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (deference to trial court on best-interest findings; clear-error standard)
- Tessa M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 182 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2008) (acknowledges subjective considerations in remedy determinations)
- Burke P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 162 P.3d 1239 (Alaska 2007) (extraordinary-circumstances for post-termination visitation not shown)
- C.W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 23 P.3d 52 (Alaska 2001) (post-termination visitation context and permanency considerations)