Sherman B. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, 2012 Alas. LEXIS 175

Darcy M. was born March 2009 cocaine- and marijuana-positive to Amy M.; OCS took emergency custody and she was placed with Vallerie M.; Sherman B. is the biological father who learned of paternity in 2009; he had minimal contact early on and later sought custody plans; OCS filed petitions as the case progressed.
OCS established paternity in June 2009 and Sherman attended few initial hearings, with history of criminal charges and inconsistent involvement in Darcy's life.
OCS filed an Amended Emergency Petition for Adjudication of Child in Need of Aid for Temporary Custody; Sherman intermittently engaged and often required lawyer presence to participate; his history included multiple court filings and conduct issues.
In 2010–2011, Sherman sought placement through his aunt in New York; New York courts later criticized his parental judgment for forcibly taking Georgina from relatives; Sherman left Alaska multiple times for extended periods.
From 2011 to trial, visits were irregular and often supervised or canceled; Sherman left the state in March 2011 and returned months later with strained contact; OCS petitioned for termination in October 2011, trial occurred January 2012, and the superior court terminated Sherman’s parental rights after finding abandonment and best interests favored termination.
Amy relinquished her parental rights at trial; the court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and that termination was in Darcy’s best interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Darcy was a child in need of aid due to abandonment	Sherman argues ongoing involvement and effort.	State contends abandonment supported by minimal contact and lack of progress.	Yes; abandonment shown by willful disregard of parental duties.
Whether Sherman remedied the conditions that placed Darcy in need of aid	Sherman made efforts to bond, complete classes, and obtain housing.	Record shows incomplete remedy and ongoing risk.	No; failure to remedy established by history of limited contact and noncompliance.
Whether OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family	OCS failed to provide adequate services.	OCS provided tests, placement options, coaching, housing and referrals.	Yes; OCS’s efforts deemed reasonable and substantial.
Whether termination was in Darcy's best interests	Maintaining bond with foster caregiver could be harmed; Sherman should have permanency.	Terminating parental rights would disrupt Darcy's stability and bond with Vallerie.	Yes; best interests favored permanence with Vallerie due to bond and safety concerns.

Christina J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 254 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2011) (cites best-interests and CINA principles in termination)
Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (case on standards for reasonable efforts and termination)
Maisy W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 175 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2008) (analysis of abandonment and parental duties)
Pravat P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (mixed questions of law and fact in ICWA/OCS context)
Sean B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 251 P.3d 330 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing best interests and reasonable efforts)
Martin N. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 79 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2003) (parental rights termination framework and causation)
Rick P. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 109 P.3d 950 (Alaska 2005) (adequacy of OCS efforts in reunification)
Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697, 117 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2005) (analysis of reasonable efforts and parental duties)