Trevor M. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
368 P.3d 607
Alaska2016Background
- Maya S., a young child, was removed from her mother twice for neglect and substance exposure; she lived with maternal grandparents while OCS handled the case.
- Father Trevor M. had a criminal history and substance abuse problems; he was incarcerated at times during the case and had limited contact with Maya.
- OCS opened a case plan after Trevor’s release in early 2014 requiring anger-management, substance-abuse assessment, UAs, and supervised visitation; OCS repeatedly attempted to arrange services and visitation.
- Trevor attended only a small portion of recommended services, missed most scheduled UAs (4 of 26 attended), visited Maya three times in July 2014, then had no contact for over seven months before trial.
- The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that Trevor abandoned Maya (multiple statutory grounds), failed to remedy the conditions placing her at risk within a reasonable time, and that termination of parental rights was in Maya’s best interests; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trevor) | Defendant's Argument (State/OCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trevor abandoned Maya by failing to maintain regular visitation for six months | The six-month abandonment period cannot be the sole basis for termination because the parent must be given an opportunity after that period to remedy the conduct | Trevor failed to maintain regular visitation (only three visits over 15 months; none for 7+ months before trial) and OCS consistently tried to arrange visits | Court affirmed: failure to maintain regular visitation for at least six months supported abandonment; no separate post-six-month remediation period required |
| Whether Trevor was given a reasonable time to remedy conduct that placed Maya at risk | OCS’s timetable was rushed; lack of clear notice and resources (transportation, money) denied a fair opportunity to comply | Given Maya’s age, need for permanency, Trevor’s criminal history, minimal service participation, and likelihood of continued harmful conduct, the time given was reasonable | Court affirmed: findings that Trevor failed to remedy within a reasonable time and that permanency favored termination were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Emma D. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 322 P.3d 842 (Alaska 2014) (standard of review and deference to trial court factfinding in CINA cases)
- Sylvia L. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska 2015) (review standards for CINA factual findings)
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (abandonment grounds under AS 47.10.013 are disjunctive)
- Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2005) (timing and review in termination proceedings)
- Christina J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 254 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2011) (reasonableness of time to remedy analyzed case-by-case and shorter for young children)
- Sherry R. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 332 P.3d 1268 (Alaska 2014) (court may rely on parent’s past conduct to predict future behavior)
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (court may consider child’s best interests and statutory factors when evaluating remedy and permanence)