Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

A mother appealed the termination of her parental rights to her child. On appeal, she questioned: (1) the child was a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011; (2) that she failed to remedy the conduct that placed the child in need of aid; (3) the finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (4) that the termination of her parental rights was in the child’s best interests. Because all of the superior court’s rulings were supported by the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights. View "Casey K. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

A.H. was born in 2010 with extreme medical needs. A.H. required hospitalization three times when she was in the care of her parents. Eventually, the Department of Health and Human Services placed the child in a foster home. After being placed in a foster home, A.H. began receiving adequate nutrition and became healthier. Because A.H.'s parents demonstrated that they had limited intellectual capacity and failed to progress in rehabilitation, the Department petitioned for the termination of each parent's parental rights. After a hearing, the district court terminated both parents' parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding (1) the parents were not able to protect A.H. from jeopardy; (2) the parents were unable to take responsibility for A.H. within a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs; and (3) the termination of parental rights and adoption by the foster parents was in A.H.'s best interest. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

Lisa Kisling, the legal guardian of two children with special needs, applied for and received child care assistance benefits up until the time she enrolled in law school. At that time, the Department of Family Services (Department) denied child care assistance benefits to Kisling because her participation in a graduate program in college rendered her ineligible for receipt of such benefits. After a contested case hearing, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) upheld the denial of benefits. The district court reversed, holding that the Department was equitably estopped from denying benefits to Kisling. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in considering Kisling's estoppel claim because that issue was not raised in the proceedings before the OAH. View "State ex rel. Dep't of Family Servs. v. Kisling" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the termination of Sherman B.'s parental rights to his son Kadin M. The Office of Children's Services (OCS) took Kadin into custody shortly after his birth because he and his mother, Amy M., both tested positive for cocaine, and because of concerns about both parents' ability to care for the child. OCS had already been involved with Sherman for several years because of concerns with his other three children. The superior court terminated both Sherman's and Amy's parental rights to Kadin. Sherman appealed, contesting the court's findings that: (1) he abandoned Kadin; (2) that he failed to remedy the conduct that caused Kadin to be a child in need of aid; (3) that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (4) that termination of his parental rights is in Kadin's best interests. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Sherman B. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Kyle S. appealed a superior court decision that adjudicated his teenage daughter Jane a child in need of aid. Jane was taken into State custody when she was 15 years old, after she reported being physically abused by her stepmother. The superior court based its decision on Jane's propensity to run away; it made no findings about either Kyle or his wife. At the time of the adjudication hearing, Jane had several criminal charges pending. Kyle challenged the trial court's adjudication decision, arguing that the statutory subsection about runaways was unconstitutional as applied to him and that the court incorrectly concluded that the State made active efforts to prevent the family's breakup. Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded Kyle waived his constitutional argument by not raising it earlier and because the superior court's active-efforts decision was supported by the record. View "Kyle S. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

F.V.O., respondent in a dependency action, appealed a trial court's orders after a dispositional review hearing in a dependency case. A majority of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the orders; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded. Both arguments presented by the motherÐ-regarding the finding by the trial court as to the efforts made by DHR to reunite the mother and the children and the announcement of a new permanency plan--failed to adjudicate any rights of the mother from which an appeal would lie. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for that court to dismiss the mother's appeal and to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "F.V.O. v. Coffee County Department of Human Resources" on Justia Law

Petitioner Catherine Harwood appealed a Human Services Board decision that applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to uphold the substantiation of her abuse of a vulnerable adult, and thereby placed her name on the adult abuse registry. Petitioner argued that she should not have been precluded from appealing the abuse substantiation because she was never given a full and fair opportunity to challenge the allegations. Petitioner is the mother of M.T., a thirty-five-year-old woman who had significant developmental disabilities and was unable to care for herself. Upon review of the Board's decision, the Supreme Court agreed with petitioner that she did not receive an opportunity to challenge the allegations. The Court reversed the Board's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Harwood" on Justia Law

Chloe O. had a history of substance abuse and mental health issues. OCS took Chloe's fifteen-month-old daughter, Ashanti, into emergency custody because of Chloe's drug abuse, suicide attempts, assaultive behaviors, and affinity for unsafe people and situations. OCS made many unsuccessful attempts to assist Chloe in obtaining treatment for her substance abuse issues and, eventually, for her mental health issues. Following a trial, Chloe's parental rights to Ashanti were terminated. Chloe appealed the trial court's termination order on several grounds, one being that OCS failed to try to reunify Chloe's family. Before briefing was completed the parties agreed that the case should be remanded to allow the trial court to reconsider the active efforts question under the correct evidentiary standard. The trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that OCS had made active efforts to reunify Chloe's family. Chloe appealed the trial court's finding and ultimately, the court's decision to terminate her parental rights. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed in all respects. View "Chloe O. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Claudio P. was incarcerated before his daughter Iris was born and was likely to remain incarcerated for a significant portion of Iris's childhood. Iris was taken into State custody in June 2010 due to her mother's substance abuse and unsafe conditions in her home. Claudio's mother requested that Iris be placed with her, but she was unable to maintain stable housing. Claudio provided the name of his father, who lived in South Dakota, as another placement option. OCS requested home studies under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children for each of Claudio's parents. Both home studies came back with positive recommendations shortly before the termination trial. Following the trial, the trial court terminated Claudio's parental rights to Iris and noted that Iris's permanent placement would be determined at a subsequent hearing. Claudio argued that the trial court erred by terminating his rights because OCS should have taken more action to place Iris with one of his parents. After its review, the Supreme Court concluded that OCS's investigation of Claudio's placement request was reasonable and timely, and that each of the trial court's challenged findings was supported by substantial evidence. View "Claudio P. v. Alaska" on Justia Law

Father appealed a trial court’s conclusion that his son D.D. was a child in need of care or supervision (CHINS) because he was without proper medical care necessary for his well being. Father argued on appeal that the record did not support the trial court’s factual findings, which in turn did not support the trial court’s legal conclusion. The State challenged the timeliness of father’s appeal and, on the merits, argued that the trial court’s findings and conclusions were adequately supported. Upon careful review of the trial court's conclusion, the Supreme Court concluded father’s appeal was untimely, but reached the merits in this instance and affirmed the trial court’s substantive determination. View "In re D.D." on Justia Law