436 P.3d 1032
Alaska2019Background
- Parents Violet C. (mother) and Jack C. (father) are separated; twins Maggie and Doug were removed by OCS in Aug 2015 after reports of Violet's substance use and violent behaviors at home.
- OCS created case plans requiring substance-abuse treatment, urinalysis, parenting classes, and services; Violet has hearing/mobility impairments and requested accommodations and transportation.
- The superior court initially found OCS provided insufficient efforts for Violet from Sept 2015–Feb 2016 but adequate efforts thereafter; Jack was often incarcerated and difficult for OCS to contact.
- At the termination trial, the court found clear and convincing evidence that the children were children in need of aid based on parental substance abuse (and alternatively abandonment, incarceration, and risk of domestic violence) and terminated both parents’ rights in March 2018.
- On appeal, Violet challenged findings of abandonment, risk of domestic violence, and that OCS made reasonable reunification efforts; Jack challenged only the reasonable-efforts finding. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was supported by a CINA finding when parents’ substance abuse found | Violet: court erred in alternative CINA findings (abandonment, domestic violence) | State: at least one CINA ground (substance abuse) stands, so termination is supported | Affirmed; because Violet did not challenge the substance-abuse finding, alternative challenges were moot and termination stands |
| Whether OCS made reasonable reunification efforts for Violet | Violet: OCS failed to provide consistent transportation and accommodations, hindering compliance | State: OCS provided multiple reasonable services and accommodations after Feb 2016; parent’s failures and nonparticipation matter | Affirmed; court reasonably found OCS efforts sufficient overall despite imperfections |
| Whether OCS made reasonable reunification efforts for Jack | Jack: OCS failed to coordinate telephonic visitation and initiate ICPC placement | State: incarceration and practical circumstances limited what OCS could do; OCS made reasonable attempts to contact and provide services when possible | Affirmed; court reasonably found OCS efforts sufficient given incarceration constraints |
| Whether mootness/collateral-consequences permits review of alternative CINA findings | Violet: asks court to vacate alternative findings to avoid future collateral use | State: appellate review unnecessary where an uncontested ground supports termination | Court: declined to apply collateral-consequences doctrine here; mootness bars review of alternative findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennifer L. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 357 P.3d 110 (Alaska 2015) (mootness is a question of law evaluated independently)
- Rick P. v. State, OCS, 109 P.3d 950 (Alaska 2005) (only one CINA ground is necessary to support termination)
- Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 188 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2008) (OCS efforts must be reasonable but need not be perfect)
- Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State, 117 P.3d 697 (Alaska 2005) (parental unwillingness to participate may bear on reasonableness of state efforts)
- A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (practical circumstances of incarceration affect what reunification efforts are possible)