Rowan B. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 361 P.3d 910

Father Rowan B. Sr. had custody of three minor children (Agnes, Rowan Jr., Saul) after divorce; older stepdaughters later reported long-term sexual and physical abuse by Rowan.
OCS removed the minors in June 2012 and adjudicated them CINA based on findings Rowan sexually and physically abused Agnes and exposed the boys to that abuse; Rowan appealed aspects of the CINA adjudication but the adjudication was ultimately affirmed.
Rowan was later criminally convicted on 29 counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of incest and was sentenced to a lengthy prison term; he is appealing those convictions.
OCS filed to terminate Rowan’s parental rights in April 2014; Rowan asked the superior court to stay or continue the termination proceedings pending resolution of his criminal appeal, claiming prejudice to his ability to defend and potential reversal impacting the case.
The superior court denied the requested continuance, emphasizing the children’s need for timely permanency and relying on independent evidence of abuse; the court held the requested multi-year delay was not in the children’s best interests.
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because children’s interest in permanency outweighed the parent’s interest in delaying termination until criminal appeals concluded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rowan)	Defendant's Argument (State/OCS)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying continuance of termination proceedings pending criminal appeal	Denial prejudiced Rowan; reversal of criminal convictions could change evidence and his ability to participate; requested ~1.75–2 year stay	Continuance would harm children’s timely permanency; OCS has independent evidence of abuse; statute requires trial within six months absent good cause	Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; children’s interest in permanency outweighed delay (no good cause for lengthy continuance)
Whether invoking Fifth Amendment required continuance because parent could not freely testify	Fifth Amendment invocation constrained Rowan’s defense; therefore delay needed until appeal resolves	Parent should not be allowed to indefinitely delay termination by pleading privilege; courts balance privilege against child’s need for prompt resolution	Court: Fifth Amendment invocation does not compel continuance when children’s best interests in timely permanency predominate

R.F. v. S.S., 928 P.2d 1194 (Alaska 1996) (affirming termination despite pending criminal appeals where child’s need for permanency outweighed parent’s post-conviction interests)
A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (trial court may proceed with termination without final criminal ruling; reversal of conviction does not bar termination if other grounds support it)
Armstrong v. Tanaka, 228 P.3d 79 (Alaska 2010) (discusses that witnesses should not be penalized for invoking Fifth Amendment and courts must balance privilege against other interests)
Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., 289 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2012) (standard for reviewing denial of continuance: abuse of discretion and consideration of prejudice to parties)