Ralph H. v. State, Dept. of Health
246 P.3d 916
Alaska2011Background
- OCS removed Ralph and Nell’s five children after Ralph assaulted the oldest daughter; Rex, the couple’s only son, was placed in foster care with ongoing visitation plans.
- The family’s history with OCS spans from 1992 due to chronic neglect and physical abuse; numerous reports were made, and the parents repeatedly moved, disrupting services and visitation.
- OCS prepared case plans and referred the parents for assessments, therapy, and housing assistance; despite services, the family repeatedly relocated away from Rex’s placement.
- Rex was diagnosed with mental health and behavioral issues (Reactive Attachment Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder), attributed to alleged pathogenic parenting and exposure to domestic violence.
- OCS sought termination of Ralph’s parental rights to Rex, arguing Rex was a child in need of aid and that termination was in Rex’s best interests; the superior court terminated Ralph’s rights, and Nell’s rights were not challenged.
- On appeal, Ralph challenges the sufficiency of the CINA findings, the remedying of conduct, and OCS’s reasonable efforts; the Alaska Supreme Court affirms in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Rex a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011? | Ralph argues lack of sustained visitation precludes CINA findings. | OCS contends multiple subsections support CINA findings. | Yes; Rex fits multiple subsections (1, 6, 8, 9, 11). |
| Did Ralph remedy the conduct placing Rex at substantial risk? | Ralph complied with treatment plans and improved. | Remedying requires more than partial compliance; risks persisted. | No; Ralph did not remedy the conduct within a reasonable time. |
| Did OCS make reasonable efforts to reunify the family? | Pre-custody and post-custody efforts were adequate. | Efforts before custody cannot support post-custody reunification. | Yes; OCS made reasonable efforts under AS 47.10.086. |
| Is termination consistent with Ralph’s due process rights? | Termination is arbitrary without sufficient findings. | Proper constitutional balancing supports termination where child welfare requires it. | No due process violation given the findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (remedying the harmful conduct is a factual determination reviewed for clear error)
- V.S.B. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 45 P.3d 1198 (Alaska 2002) (guides reasonable-efforts standard and evaluative framework)
- Frank E. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 77 P.3d 715 (Alaska 2003) (precedent on standard of review and termination considerations)
- Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (reinforces standard of review for termination findings)
- Martin N. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 79 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2003) (commentary on reasonable-efforts analysis)