Rowan B. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
320 P.3d 1152
Alaska2014Background
- Parents Rowan B. (father) and Risa F. (mother) faced CINA proceedings after allegations Rowan sexually and physically abused daughters and Risa suffered schizoaffective bipolar disorder impairing parenting.
- Allegations included long‑term sexual abuse of daughter Agnes and admissions by adult daughter Aeryn about abuse of her and Reagan; OCS removed the two sons (Junior and Saul) and filed emergency petitions for all three children.
- Rowan moved to compel law‑enforcement records (AST, APD) for discovery; agencies cited Public Records Act exceptions and the trial court denied the motion without in camera review.
- At the contested adjudication the court found the children to be in need of aid under AS 47.10.011 subsections for physical harm, sexual abuse/risk of sexual abuse, mental injury, and parental mental illness; the court credited the daughters’ testimonies and found Rowan had sexually and physically abused the daughters.
- Rowan declined to testify partly because he lacked the requested discovery; the court denied reconsideration and entered disposition giving OCS custody for up to two years.
- The Supreme Court retained jurisdiction and remanded for limited proceedings, holding the trial court erred by denying discovery without at least an in camera review and clarifying standards about risk findings for siblings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of law‑enforcement records without in camera review violated due process/discovery rules | Rowan: civil discovery rules entitled him to relevant law‑enforcement records; denial without in camera review was legal error and prejudicial | OCS/AST: matter is controlled by Public Records Act exceptions; review was discretionary and any error was harmless | Court: Reversed and remanded — trial court erred by relying solely on Public Records Act and not performing in camera review or balancing discovery needs; Rowan must be allowed to obtain records or court must claim privilege and review in camera. |
| Whether sexual abuse of one child supports finding that other children are at substantial risk under AS 47.10.011(7) | Rowan: In re P.N. rationale no longer applies after statutory changes; sexual abuse of one sibling should not automatically justify risk finding for others | OCS: In re P.N. principles remain sound; court may infer substantial risk to other children in household | Court: Affirmed principle — when a parent sexually abuses one child in the household, court may presume other children are at substantial risk under AS 47.10.011(7); remand allows re‑evaluation after any new discovery. |
| Whether GAL’s additional requested subsections (beyond OCS’s) violated notice rights | Rowan: Challenged that new bases were raised late and sought extra time | OCS/GAL: GAL said subsections were raised in opening; no unfair surprise | Court: Found adequate notice for some subsections (6 and 8) from GAL’s opening and did not grant extra time; did not reverse on this ground due to remand focused on discovery. |
| Whether errors were harmless given criminal proceedings and available discovery in criminal case | Rowan: argued prejudice from lack of civil discovery prevented defense/presentation | OCS: suggested criminal discovery may have mitigated harm | Court: Directed trial court to ensure any records not already provided in criminal case be produced or claimed and reviewed in camera; allowed Rowan to present newly obtained material on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re P.N., 533 P.2d 13 (Alaska 1975) (parental sexual abuse of one child can show serious disregard of parental responsibilities and risk to siblings)
- In re Mendel, 897 P.2d 68 (Alaska 1995) (procedure for in camera review when privilege is claimed)
- Honda Motor Co. v. Salzman, 751 P.2d 489 (Alaska 1988) (discussing protection for trade secrets and in camera review principles)
- Jones v. Jennings, 788 P.2d 732 (Alaska 1990) (civil rules reflect liberal pretrial discovery)
- Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051 (Alaska 2008) (de novo review for interpretation of court rules)