Sherman B. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
310 P.3d 943
Alaska2013Background
- OCS took custody of Kadin at birth due to cocaine exposure by Sherman and Amy; prior cases showed Sherman’s involvement with Darcy and Khloe were problematic; Sherman’s rights to Darcy were terminated in 2012; Sherman refused a court-ordered psychological evaluation and failed to provide housing/income information; OCS argued abandonment under a two-part test and failure to remedy; the superior court terminated Sherman’s parental rights to Kadin in October 2012, which Sherman challenged on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment: Did Sherman willfully disregard parental obligations leading to destruction of the parent-child bond? | Sherman abandoned by not participating in plan and showing no ongoing involvement. | State can find abandonment based on conduct toward one child and failed reunification. | Yes, abandonment established under two-part test. |
| Remedy: Did Sherman fail to remedy the conditions placing Kadin in need of aid within a reasonable time? | Sherman largely complied with plan except for psychological eval. | Sherman’s noncompliance with evaluation and other plan elements shows failure to remedy. | Yes, Sherman failed to remedy. |
| Reasonable reunification efforts: Were OCS’s reunification efforts reasonable? | OCS’s efforts were extensive given history with Sherman. | Efforts were not reasonable due to timing and Sherman’s lack of cooperation. | Yes, efforts were reasonable. |
| Best interests: Was termination in Kadin’s best interests? | Termination necessary to provide stability; bonds with relatives support permanency. | Potential for reunification should be explored; termination too hasty. | Yes, termination in Kadin’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 290 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2012) (standard for evaluating remedial steps and integrity of reunification efforts)
- Sean B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 251 P.3d 330 (Alaska 2011) (context for two-part abandonment analysis and civility toward OCS)
- Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2005) (parental conduct may support CINA status based on acts of one parent)
- Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 289 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2012) (deference to credibility; assess ongoing parental understanding of child development)
- E.A. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986 (Alaska 2002) (reasonableness of services and parent cooperation in evaluating reunification)