*1 рrovision no for makes statute, ices. The statute defined in the but an pense” is not to reimburse the state requiring anyone else of the rest of AS 18.85clarifies examination appointed for system pays when the court meaning. its counsel. Alaska 85 of Title 18 of Chapter must be reversed. judgment The below public with the defender Statutes deals agency by is created AS 18.- agency. The REVERSED. indigent the needs of de 85.010 “to serve determines that the “If a court fendants.” J., BOOCHEVER, participating. not represented by an to bе is entitled expense, prompt public at attorney [public agency or
ly notify the defender] attorney him under for
assign private 18.85.110(d). chapter.” of this AS
§ 18.85.130(a) if the court specifies compen reasonable appointment, makes the T., Appellant, RITA paid by “shall be expenses sation and Paragraph (b) provides that court system.” v. private counsel agency contracts Alaska, Appellee. STATE of defendant, public “the defender shall No. 5036. of appropriations for these services out pay plain meaning agency.” The Alaska. Suрreme Court of expense” as used in AS public words “at 13, Feb. 1981. public either the defender 18.85 if it pay attorney’s will fees agency defendant, counsel for a or the private
hires will if it system pay appoints
court case,
private In any counsel. it the state clearly statutory no pays. There is assessing non-par
authorization for other indigent of an defendant
ties for the fees appoints whom the court counsel. or non-profit corporation is a
ALSO
ganized It most 10.20. receives Legal Corpora from funding its
tion, corporation, although non-profit also a act. does
created a federal ALSO duty law general legal provide
have a
yers in the same sense as indigents agen public
court defender system
cy do. its clearly exceeded trial Legal when it ordered Alaska
authority pay
Services to the fees of defendant’s
court-appointed counsel. While the court appoint in this
may be authorized counsel decide,
case, which we do not an issue
appointing private represent counsel defendant, judge obligated the
indigent attorney’s for the serv- system рay question. question place. not the is whether this to make in An invalid the first order is judge authority was an order that the had the regardless unenforceable Rule Civil
345 Branch, Legal N. Alaska Daniel appellant. Bethel, for Corp., Kennedy, Atty. Asst. Page Elizabeth Grоss, Avrum M. Gen., and Anchorage Gen., Juneau, appellee. Atty. RABINOWITZ, J., CONNOR, C. Before MATTHEWS, JJ., and DI- and BURKE MOND, Senior Justice.
OPINION
DIMOND,
Justice.
Senior
T.,
daughter
L.
T.’s
C.
When Rita
minor
old,
years
boyfriend
Rita and
was two
her
cigarette
with
and beat
burned
a
a
a result of
her
a
and
stick. As
with
belt
events,
were commenced
proceedings
these
paren-
Rita’s
in
to terminate
superior court
1977,
in
and
hearings
rights.
tal
After
C. L. T.
be a
adjudged
superior
her to the
committed
neglected child and
of Health and
Department
custody
court termi-
superior
Social Services.
subdivi-
rights under
parental
nated Rita’s
appealed
Rita
(c)(3) of
47.10.080.1
sion
judgment.
we affirmed the
to this court and
T.,
In
L.
(Alaska 1979).
re C.
сourt for further Olsen, DANA, Peter a/k/a Peter opinion. with this Appellant, v. RABINOWITZ, Justice, concurring. Chief I the court’s construction of Alaska, Appellee. with agree STATE whose 47.10.080(f) parent that a natural No. 4888. terminated has parental rights have been of the order terminat- right to a review Alaska. Appeals Court upon showing ing cause. 22, 1981. Jan.
However, grant I would also original termination
Rita T. to review significantly stricter stan-
order under the statute, regardless of new
dards of the adopt- L. T. now been
whether or not C. has
ed. The new statute effective less became after
than four months the order terminat-
ing parental rights Rita T.’s was entered former
under the statute. M., Matter of J. M. and M.
In the *5 1376, 1378-79(Alaska 1978),holds that
P.2d adoption former repeal statute stricter significantly a new statute with for review
standards constitute chil judgment dependency, and that adjudged dependent
dren under AS 47.10.-
010(a)(5) repeal its to a prior to are entitled
hearing under the stricter standards of 47.10.010(a).
new under Since
court’s decision in the case at we have bar good-cause
held that review is available in a case, T. is I conclude that Rita
termination review the termina
entitled to a under the stan of her regard new
dards of the statute without adopted or not C. L.
whether T. has
prior hearing. In contrast with the rehabilitation,
“good of Rita cause” T.’s
“good justifying cause” right
the new standards is that she has the applied have the new standards
original termination of her parental
Thus, hearing I de contemplate would termi original
termine whether not the
nation was valid.