442 P.3d 717
Alaska2019Background
- Mother Sabrina signed a voluntary relinquishment of parental rights to her son Kaleb in May 2018 while he lived with paternal relatives; the relinquishment allowed withdrawal within 10 days and promised notice if the planned adoptive placement failed.
- OCS placed Kaleb with his paternal grandmother pending a home study; the grandmother later was found medically unsuitable to adopt.
- Sabrina signed a Notice of Withdrawal on June 29, 2018 (more than 10 days after the relinquishment) and served the parties that day; the notice was filed July 2.
- The superior court signed an order terminating Sabrina’s parental rights on July 2, apparently unaware of the withdrawal notice.
- Sabrina moved for reconsideration arguing the court retained discretion to permit a late withdrawal and that termination was not in the child’s best interests; the court denied reconsideration and Sabrina appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sabrina) | Defendant's Argument (OCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could permit withdrawal of a voluntary relinquishment after the 10‑day statutory window but before a termination order | Court retained discretion under AS 47.10.089(e) and AS 47.10.100(a) to allow late withdrawal if in child’s best interests; Sabrina filed withdrawal before termination order was signed | Statutes and Adoption Rule 9 limit post‑10‑day options; withdrawal after 10 days is ineffective except by agency consent (AS 25.23.180(g)) or via post‑termination review (AS 47.10.089(h)) | Court assumed, without deciding, it may have had discretion but found it did not abuse discretion in declining to accept the untimely withdrawal |
| Whether the failure of the anticipated adoption (grandmother ineligible) justified allowing late withdrawal | The failed adoption changed circumstances and made termination not in Kaleb’s best interests; Sabrina sought reinstatement on that basis | Relinquishment was unconditional except for a retained right to notice; failure of placement does not automatically permit withdrawal and parent must seek review/hearing | Court held the relinquishment contemplated adoption failure; refusal to reconsider was not arbitrary or unreasonable |
| Whether Sabrina may directly challenge the termination as not in child’s best interests | Sabrina asserts termination was not in Kaleb’s best interests given no adoptive placement | OCS argues Sabrina lacks standing to attack termination unless she first validly withdrew or voided the relinquishment | Court declined to reach the merits: Sabrina had voluntarily removed herself from proceedings and failed to avail statutory means to reinstate, so she lacked standing to directly attack the termination |
| Whether superior court’s factual findings and procedures were adequate for review | Sabrina noted absence of explicit best‑interest findings in termination order | OCS relied on statutory/contractual terms of relinquishment and procedural posture | Court affirmed but admonished trial courts to make adequate best‑interest findings per AS 47.10.089(e) for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Alaskan Adventure Tours, Inc. v. City & Borough of Yakutat, 307 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2013) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Sharpe v. Sharpe, 366 P.3d 66 (Alaska 2016) (abuse of discretion definition and appellate review principles)
- Danielle A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 215 P.3d 349 (Alaska 2009) (statutory interpretation in CINA context)
- Brynna B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Social Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 88 P.3d 527 (Alaska 2004) (precedent on statutory interpretation cited for guidance)
- Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997) (need for findings to support appellate review on best‑interest determinations)