Sean B. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
251 P.3d 330
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Josh, born April 5, 2001, was placed in foster care after OCS found neglect and drug abuse concerns by his mother Melanie in 2007.
- Sean, Josh’s father, had limited contact and did not consistently communicate or participate in the case plan during Josh’s minority.
- Josh lived with Mason’s parents in Arkansas starting 2008, while OCS transitioned the permanency plan from reunification to adoption.
- OCS documented ongoing reunification efforts, including letters, photographs, and counseling attempts, but communication with Sean was irregular.
- The superior court ultimately found Sean abandoned Josh, failed to remedy the risks to Josh, and that termination was in Josh’s best interests, with Josh placed with Lois and Trevor (step-grandparents).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment established under AS 47.10.013 | Sean showed willful disregard by failing to maintain contact. | Sean argues his communications and intent should preclude abandonment. | Yes; the court properly found willful disregard and destruction of the relationship. |
| Remedy of abandonment conduct under AS 47.10.088(a)(2) | Sean failed to remedy and address risk factors after custody began. | Sean argues he attempted to remedy and participate. | Yes; Sean did not remedy the conduct or conditions within a reasonable time. |
| Reasonable reunification efforts under AS 47.10.086 | OCS engaged in timely, reasonable, and tenacious reunification efforts. | Sean contends efforts were insufficient or improperly timed. | Yes; OCS’s efforts were reasonable and tenacious given the circumstances. |
| Best interests of Josh in terminating parental rights | Termination serves Josh’s need for stability and safety. | Sean maintains some ongoing parental connection and benefits from reunification. | Yes; termination was in Josh’s best interests. |
| Applicable statutes AS 47.10.019 and AS 47.10.080(o) | Statutes do not preclude termination or require different grounds when others are satisfied. | Sean contends these statutes should control or preclude termination. | Yes; neither statute precluded termination given the substantiated grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maisy W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 175 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2008) (foundational for evidentiary standard and abuse/neglect context)
- J.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 30 P.3d 79 (Alaska 2001) (best interests and statutory framework for termination)
- Rick P. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 109 P.3d 950 (Alaska 2005) (two-part abandonment analysis and deference to trial findings)
- Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2005) (standard for factual review and willful disregard)
- G.C. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 67 P.3d 648 (Alaska 2003) (reasonable efforts and time considerations in reunification)
- H.C. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., In re H.C., 956 P.2d 477 (Alaska 1998) (ordering and evaluation of remedial efforts)
- O.R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 932 P.2d 1303 (Alaska 1997) (remedial and best interests considerations)