Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available by Touch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions

Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website.
  This site is possible because of the following site sponsors. Please support them with your business.
www.gottsteinLaw.com

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Alden H. v. State, Office of Children's Services (03/04/2005) sp-5874

Alden H. v. State, Office of Children's Services (03/04/2005) sp-5874

     Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction  before
     publication  in  the  Pacific  Reporter.   Readers  are
     requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk
     of  the  Appellate  Courts, 303  K  Street,  Anchorage,
     Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878,
     e-mail corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.

            THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA

ALDEN H., SR.,                               )
                              )    Supreme Court No. S-11450
               Appellant,          )
                              )    Superior Court No.
     v.                       )    3AN-98-00357/358 CP
                              )
STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF    )
CHILDRENS SERVICES,                )    O P I N I O N
                              )
               Appellee.      )    [No. 5874 - March 4, 2005]
                              )


          Appeal  from the Superior Court of the  State
          of    Alaska,   Third   Judicial    District,
          Anchorage, Peter A. Michalski, Judge.

          Appearances: Chad W. Holt, Holt &  Brockberg,
          LLC,  Anchorage, for Appellant.   Michael  G.
          Hotchkin,    Assistant   Attorney    General,
          Anchorage,  and  Gregg  D.  Renkes,  Attorney
          General,   Juneau,  for  Appellee  State   of
          Alaska.   Leslie  Dickson,  Assistant  Public
          Advocate, Anchorage, for Appellee Guardian ad
          Litem.

          Before:   Bryner,  Chief  Justice,  Matthews,
          Eastaugh, Fabe, and Carpeneti, Justices.

          CARPENETI, Justice.

I.   INTRODUCTION

          Alden  H. is the father of two severely troubled  boys,

Alden, Jr. and Neil.1  In 2000 Alden voluntarily relinquished his

parental   rights.2   He  is  now  attempting  to  withdraw   his

relinquishment and re-enter his sons lives.  Alden  moved  before

the superior court for a hearing to review his relinquishment and

for  an  order  to  enforce  a provision  of  the  relinquishment

purporting  to  grant him visitation rights.  The superior  court

denied  both  motions and Alden appeals.  Finding  no  error,  we

          affirm.

II.  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

     A.   Facts

          Alden  H.  is the father of Alden H., Jr. and  Neil  H.

The  boys  mother is Sara B.  She is not a party to this  action.

Alden  and Sara lived together in Anchorage with Alden Jr., Neil,

and  Saras  two older children by a different father, Zander  and

Nancy.  The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services3  had

received  reports  of  substance  abuse,  neglect,  and  domestic

violence  but  had lost track of the family because  of  frequent

moves.  On June 4, 1998 the Anchorage Police Department responded

to  a  report that a child had been left unattended in a stroller

all  day.   The  police  discovered Neil in  a  stroller  in  the

driveway of the familys home, and found Sara inside, asleep,  and

smelling of alcohol.

          After  this  incident, the family fled to  a  Fairbanks

campground.  On June 11, 1998 Zander ran to the police recounting

a  variety of abuses  including being forced to drink alcohol and

ingest hallucinogenic mushrooms, and physical abuse by Alden.  At

the

            time, Zander was reportedly filthy and suffering from

bronchitis.   All  four children were taken into  state  custody.

Like  Zander,  the others were filthy, with dirt in  their  hair,

ears,  eyes,  mouth and genital areas.  Neil was  diagnosed  with

conjunctivitis.   Nancy later reported that  Alden  had  sexually

abused  her.   Zander  added that Alden had  threatened  to  kill

Zander and Nancy if Nancy ever reported the abuse.

          The  department  developed a family reunification  plan

for  Alden  and  Sara.  The plan required both  parents  to  work

toward   permanent   sobriety,  receive  counseling   for   anger

management,   and  attend  parenting  classes.   Neither   parent

complied.  In 1999 Alden spent ninety days in jail on a  domestic

violence  charge.  After his release, he was arrested on  federal

drug charges related to the manufacture of methamphetamines.   He

          was later convicted and sentenced to seventy months in prison.

          In June 2000 the department placed the boys with Aldens

mother, Meg H.  The department commenced proceedings to terminate

the  parental  rights  of  Alden and Sara  in  August  2000.   On

December  27,  2000, prior to trial, Alden executed  a  voluntary

relinquishment  of  his parental rights from  federal  prison  in

California.  The relinquishment specified that Alden retained the

right  to contact his children subject to the discretion  of  the

adoptive  parents.   The  relinquishment  also  stated  that  the

children would be placed for adoption with Meg, and that  if  Meg

ever  became  unable  to care for the boys for  any  reason,  the

department  would contact Alden, and give him an  opportunity  to

request  the  withdrawal  of his relinquishment  subject  to  the

approval   of   the  department.   Saras  parental  rights   were

involuntarily terminated on January 22, 2001.

          The  boys  were removed from Megs home in October  2001

following  reports  of  abuse.  The  children  were  subsequently

separated  and  placed in therapeutic foster care.   Both  suffer

from  severe  emotional and behavioral problems;  each  has  been

through  several foster homes.  According to therapists who  have

treated  Alden  Jr.  and Neil, [v]ery skilled therapeutic  foster

parents with additional case manager and activity therapy support

are,  at  times, taxed to their limit [in] maintaining  the  boys

adequately.   These therapists believe that an  appropriate  care

giver  would  need stellar therapeutic parenting skills,  saintly

patience,  and  an  extensive working knowledge of  developmental

issues of emotionally disturbed children.

          Alden was transferred from prison to a halfway house in

Spokane,  Washington  in February 2002.  While  incarcerated,  he

stopped drinking and taking drugs.  He reportedly remains  sober.

Alden  was released from federal custody in August 2002.   As  of

May  2003, he planned to marry a woman he had met at the  halfway

house.   His  fianc‚e has four children  including a twenty-year-

old  daughter  with  a  young child.  He currently  works  as  an

independent  contractor in the Spokane area.  Alden learned  that

the  boys  had  been  removed from Megs home in  April  2002  and

promptly requested the withdrawal of his relinquishment.

     B.   Proceedings

            Alden  moved  for  a  hearing  to  review  the  order

terminating his parental rights on January 5, 2004.   He  claimed

that  the  relinquishment had been conditioned on  the  permanent

placement of his boys with Meg and that the relinquishment should

be  withdrawn because that placement had failed.  He also  argued

that  he  had a right to withdraw his relinquishment pursuant  to

Rita  T.  v.  State4 because he had overcome his substance  abuse

problems  and  was gainfully employed.  On January  12,  2004  he

added  a  motion  to enforce visitation rights  he  claimed  were

contained  within the relinquishment agreement.   The  department

opposed both motions.

          Aldens  motions were reviewed by William C.  Hitchcock,

Standing  Master  of  Anchorage Childrens Court.   Neither  party

requested oral arguments or an evidentiary hearing before  Master

Hitchcock.   Briefing  was completed on  February  25,  2004  and

Master  Hitchcock  issued his recommendation shortly  thereafter.

The  master recommended denying both of Aldens motions.  He found

that  the  relinquishment agreement was not  conditioned  on  the

successful placement of the boys with Meg, that Alden had  failed

to show good cause for a Rita T. hearing, and that the department

soundly  exercised its discretion by refusing to allow  Alden  to

have  contact  with  his  children.   Alden  objected  to  Master

Hitchcocks recommendations and asked for a hearing de novo before

the  superior  court.   On March 30, 2004, Superior  Court  Judge

Peter  A. Michalski adopted Master Hitchcocks recommendations  as

the   order   of  the  court  without  alterations  and   without

specifically  ruling  on  Aldens demand  for  a  hearing.   Alden

appeals from this decision.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

           Ordinarily, we review the validity of a relinquishment

     de novo.5  However, this issue was raised for the first time on

appeal.   Issues  not  raised in the trial  court  shall  not  be

considered on appeal, except for plain error.  Plain error exists

where  an  obvious  mistake has been made which  creates  a  high

likelihood that injustice has resulted. 6  We review the superior

courts decision to enforce the relinquishment for plain error.

          We  review the factual conclusions of a lower court for

clear error.7  We will find clear error if a review of the entire

record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing  below

leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake  has

been made. 8

          A finding that a party failed to show good cause that a

Rita  T.  hearing  should  be  held  is  reviewed  for  abuse  of

discretion.9

          We  review the superior courts decision to deny de novo

review of the masters report also for abuse of discretion.10   We

will  find  an abuse of discretion only if, based on a review  of

the whole record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been made.11

IV.  DISCUSSION

     A.   Enforcing the Relinquishment Was Not Plain Error.
          
          Alden  relinquished his parental rights subject  to  AS

25.23.180(b).   We  have  recognized  that  the  termination   of

parental  rights  did  not  exist  at  common  law  and  that  no

termination is valid without statutory authorization.12  In In re

Adoption of Keith M.W.,13 we noted that AS 25.23.180(b) authorizes

only  the  complete  relinquishment of  parental  rights.14   The

statute    does    not   authorize   conditional    or    partial

relinquishments.15

          Alden  argues  that  his voluntary  relinquishment  was

conditional  because it required the adoptive  placement  of  his

boys specifically with his mother, or that it was partial because

he  reserved  a  right  of contact with his  children,  or  both.

Because   conditional   and  partial  relinquishments   are   not

          authorized by AS 25.23.180(b),  Alden contends that the

relinquishment  was void and that it was error for  the  superior

court to enforce it.  Since Alden did not raise this issue before

the  superior  court, we review for plain error.16   Plain  error

exists   where an obvious mistake has been made which  creates  a

high  likelihood  that injustice has resulted.  17   Because  the

relinquishment  was  not  conditioned on  the  placement  of  his

children  with his mother, and because the masters  finding  that

the  relinquishment  was  not conditioned  on  the  provision  of

visitation  rights  was  not  a mistake  (much  less  an  obvious

mistake), we affirm the superior court.

          1.   The  relinquishment agreement was not  conditioned
               on  placement of the children with Aldens  mother,
               Meg H.
               
          Master  Hitchcock found nothing which supports [Aldens]

assertion that failure of the placement gave rise to an automatic

right  to  withdraw  the  relinquishment  and  thus  vacate   the

termination  order.  We  agree.  The relinquishment contained  no

language  specifying  that  the relinquishment  is  void  if  the

placement with Meg H. should fail.18  The relinquishment actually

stated  that  the  placement with Meg H. itself was  conditional.

According  to  the  agreement,  the  department  must  receive  a

positive  home study . . . before the Department can  consent  to

adoption  of  [Alden Jr.] and [Neil] by [Meg H.]   The  agreement

also   allowed   Alden   to  request  the   withdrawal   of   his

relinquishment  if  the  placement with Meg  H.  failed,  but  it

explicitly  noted  that Alden could withdraw  his  relinquishment

only  if  the  department agreed to allow it.  The relinquishment

was  therefore not conditioned on the successful placement of the

children for adoption with Meg H.

          2.   Enforcing the relinquishment in light of  language

               purporting to preserve a right of contact was  not

               plain error.

          Alden  also  argues  that  the relinquishment  is  void

because  it  retained a right of contact.  We  disagree  for  two

          reasons.   First, Master Hitchcock concluded  that  the

relinquishment  agreement did not preserve a  right  of  contact.

This  interpretation  is  not obviously mistaken.   Second,  even

assuming  that  the  relinquishment agreement did  retain  Aldens

right of contact, Alden cannot be heard now to claim that it  was

an  obvious  mistake,  for  in the superior  court  he  adamantly

insisted that the court enforce the agreement.

                 i. Master  Hitchcock  did not  make  an  obvious
                    mistake  by  interpreting the  relinquishment
                    agreement  as  not  preserving  a  right   of
                    contact.
                    
          Master  Hitchcock  concluded  that  the  relinquishment

agreement  did not preserve Aldens right to contact his children.

Because  Master  Hitchcock  was not  obviously  mistaken  in  his

interpretation of the relinquishment, there is no plain error.

          The  relinquishment  agreement  stated  generally  that

Alden retained certain rights:

          I give this relinquishment in accordance with
          AS  25.23.180.  Subject only to those  rights
          specifically  retained as set forth  in  this
          relinquishment, I voluntarily  relinquish  to
          the  Department of Health and Social Services
          . . . any and all rights and responsibilities
          of a parent with respect to these children.
          
(Emphasis  added.)   The right of contact was the  only  retained

right specifically mentioned by the relinquishment.

          [Paragraph] 7.  I retain the right of contact

          with  my  children to be arranged in  advance

          with  the  adoptive parents,  in  their  sole

          discretion based on the best interests of the

          children.   Such contact includes visitation,

          writing   letters,  and   the   exchange   of

          photographs and gifts.

Under  this provision, Aldens right of contact with his  children

is  subject  to  the sole discretion of the adoptive  parents  in

determining  the  childrens best interests.   It  is,  therefore,

quite  circumscribed.   Master Hitchcock  accordingly  determined

that this paragraph did not actually preserve a right of contact.

He  found  that  the  relinquishment was not conditioned  on  the

provision  of  visitation rights.  Paragraph 7  of  the  document

provides  a  right of contact but conditions it on the discretion

of  the  adoptive  parents based on the  best  interests  of  the

children.    Because this interpretation was not  mistaken  (much

less  obviously mistaken), we decline to find the enforcement  of

the relinquishment to be plain error.19

               ii.  Even   assuming   that   the   relinquishment
                    improperly purported to preserve a  right  of
                    contact,  the superior court did  not  commit
                    plain error in enforcing the relinquishment.
                    
          Assuming  arguendo  that  the relinquishment  agreement

improperly  purported to preserve a right of  contact,  enforcing

the  relinquishment  was not an obvious   mistake  because  Alden

demanded that Master Hitchcock and the superior court enforce the

relinquishment  agreement.   On appeal,  Alden  claims  that  the

superior  court  made an obvious mistake by not recognizing  that

Alden  was asking for the enforcement of a void agreement.   This

position is not tenable.  According to Alden, the superior courts

purported  mistake  consisted of failing to  void  a  conditional

relinquishment  sua  sponte even though  Alden  himself  demanded

enforcement  below.   There  is no obvious  mistake  under  these

circumstances.20

     B.   The   Masters  Finding  that  Evidence  Supported   the
          Departments Decision To Deny Visitation Was Not Clearly
          Erroneous.
          
          Alden  has  not  been  allowed  any  contact  with  his

children since they were removed from Megs home in October  2001.

Alden   argued  below  that  he  should  be  allowed   reasonable

visitation with his children in accordance with the terms of  the

relinquishment   agreement.    Master   Hitchcock   upheld    the

departments  decision  to deny visitation.   He  ruled  that  the

Department  is soundly exercising its discretion,  based  on  the

expert   opinion  of  the  childrens  therapists,  in   presently

restricting contact between [Alden] and the children.

          On appeal, Alden asserts that Master Hitchcocks finding

          is clearly erroneous because [t]here is no evidence which

supports  the  continued  denial of [Aldens]  right  to  contact.

Because  the  record  contains ample evidence supporting  Masters

Hitchcocks finding, we affirm.

          Master  Hitchcock reviewed various documents  submitted

by the department, including the recommendations of the childrens

therapists  and  a  psychological evaluation of  Alden.   (Master

Hitchcock  also reviewed letters and certificates   submitted  by

Alden.)   A  review of this evidence does not leave us  with  the

firm conviction that Master Hitchcock was mistaken.  Contrary  to

Aldens  assertion  that  no  evidence  supports  the  denial   of

visitation,  the documentary evidence shows clearly that  contact

is   not  currently  in  the  best  interests  of  the  children.

Moreover, Alden has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that

visitation serves the best interests of the children.

          Master Hitchcock reviewed a December 1, 2003 letter and

a  February  19, 2004 affidavit from an outpatient therapist  who

had  treated  Alden  Jr.  since May 2001.   In  the  letter,  the

therapist wrote: [Alden Jr.] should not have any contact with his

biological  father  at  this  time.  Any  contact  would  include

telephone  and  written correspondence as well as face  to  face.

The  therapist  listed several reasons why  there  should  be  no

contact:

          Contact at this time could destabilize [Alden
          Jr.]  .  . . [Alden Jr.] would have increased
          difficulty   with  concentration,  attention,
          impulsivity, and oppositional behavior . .  .
          [Alden Jr.] would use the concept of a future
          relationship with his biological father as  a
          reason  to  defy adult authority figures  and
          act   out   with  negative  behavior  towards
          others.   In the past when [Alden  Jr.]  acts
          out  he is frequently a danger to himself and
          others.
          
He concluded that [Alden Jr.] should be successfully placed in  a

permanent  placement  for  a  minimum  of  one  year   prior   to

considering  introducing  the  relationship  of  his   biological

father.  He repeated these conclusions in his affidavit.

          The  department  also  submitted a  February  19,  2004

affidavit  from  a therapist who had treated Neil  for  the  past

three   years.   The  affidavit  described  Neil  as  a  severely

emotionally  disturbed child who is very aggressive, oppositional

and  defiant,  has ADHD, pervasive development delays,  enuresis,

encopresis and attachment disorder.  The therapist believed  that

Neil should not have any contact with his biological father.   In

her opinion, [c]ontact with his biological father will result  in

increased  difficulties maintaining [Neil] in his home as  [Neil]

would  become  increasingly aggressive, defiant and oppositional,

his   enuresis   and   encopresis  will  increase   tremendously.

Moreover,  before there is any consideration of introducing  Neil

to  his  father,  [Neil]  needs to show signs  of  stability  and

progress with his behavioral issues . . . .

          Both  therapists described the results of reintroducing

the  children  to  their father in a joint  letter.   The  letter

stated that [i]t is difficult to evaluate the possible father-son

relationship  that the boys might develop in the  future  without

having  any  credible evaluations of [Alden, Sr.].  They  warned,

however,  that  [a]ny  contact, and certainly  any  inappropriate

contact,  that  the boys might have with their biological  father

could  cause  them  to regress significantly  .  .  .  .   Hence,

beginning  a  relationship with him at this time . .  .  is  only

going to make the boys lives more confusing and problematic.

          Master Hitchcock also reviewed documents  submitted  by

Alden  in support of his motion to enforce his visitation rights.

This  evidence  consisted of a letter from an  outpatient  clinic

that  had  treated  Alden  for his drug  problems  following  his

release from federal prison, a letter from a halfway house  where

Alden  had stayed after release from prison, various occupational

and  religious  certificates, and a letter from Aldens  probation

officer.  These documents supported Aldens contention that he  is

sober  and working.  They did not, however, provide any  evidence

of  his  childrens needs or any evidence that contact with  Alden

serves their best interests.

          Because the record contained substantial evidence  that

even  minimal contact  between Alden and his children would  have

negative  consequences, and because  Alden submitted no  evidence

that  contact would serve their best interests, there is no  hint

of clear error on this issue.

     C.   Alden Is Not Entitled to Relief Under Rita T. v. State.21

          Rita T. v. State announced that a parent whose parental

rights  have  been  involuntarily terminated  is  entitled  to  a

hearing to review the termination order, upon a showing that  the

parent has overcome the problems that lead to termination and  is

now capable of properly caring for the child.22  This entitlement

promotes  the  purposes  of title 47 of the  Alaska  Statutes  by

enlarging  the  potential  supply of permanent  care  givers  and

reuniting  families.23   It was based  on  the  proposition  that

allowing  a  parent who is capable of providing  proper  care  to

regain her parental rights is preferable to allowing a child  who

remains  a  ward of the court . . . to spend his  or  her  entire

minority in a succession of foster homes.24

          We  have  never decided whether the right announced  in

Rita  T. is available to parents who voluntarily relinquish their

parental rights pursuant to AS 25.23.180 and we need not  address

this  issue  here.   Even assuming that Alden could  seek  relief

under Rita T., the superior court did not abuse its discretion by

holding that Alden failed to show good cause.

          Good cause for a  Rita T. hearing can be established if

the  parents showed that it would be in the best interests of the

child  to  resume living with them because they have sufficiently

rehabilitated themselves so that they can provide proper guidance

and  care  for the child.25  A parent can provide proper guidance

and  care if he can provide the care and guidance that will serve

the   moral,  emotional,  mental  and  physical  welfare  of  the

child[.] 26

          Master  Hitchcock concluded that Alden  had  not  shown

          good cause:

          Looking   at  the  factual  basis   for   the

          adjudication  of these Children  in  Need  of

          Aid, and the subsequent treatment efforts  of

          [Alden], I find the evidence does not support

          a    finding   that   he   has   sufficiently

          rehabilitated in order to reassume custody of

          these  children.  I base that  conclusion  in

          large  part  upon the special  needs  of  the

          children  and  the expert opinions  of  their

          therapists.   I do not find that  good  cause

          has  been shown to warrant setting aside  the

          relinquishment . . . .

          Alden  contends  that  the superior  court  abused  its

discretion  because  Master  Hitchcocks  finding  relied  on  the

reports  of  the childrens therapists, who had never  met  Alden.

Accordingly, the therapists recommendations relied only on  their

contact  with  the children and their knowledge of the  childrens

history.

          Master  Hitchcocks partial reliance on the opinions  of

the childrens therapists was wholly appropriate.27  Aldens ability

to  adequately  care for his children depends  not  only  on  his

rehabilitation  but also on the needs of his children.   Rita  T.

does   not   deem   a   parent  who  has  rehabilitated   himself

automatically  capable  of  caring for  his  children.   Rita  T.

requires  a  parent to have the capability of providing  for  the

individual needs of the child.  Good cause exists only for  those

parents who can now provide the care and guidance that will serve

the moral, emotional, mental and physical welfare of the child  .

.  .  . 28  Consequently it is not only appropriate but necessary

for a court to consider the needs of the child who is the subject

of  a  Rita T. motion.  To do that, the court properly considered

evidence from the childrens therapists.

          Master Hitchcocks finding that Alden had not shown good

          cause to believe that he was capable of providing for the needs

of  his children was well supported by the record.  According  to

the   reports  submitted  by  the  childrens  therapists,  Aldens

children  have  very  demanding needs:  Very skilled  therapeutic

foster  parents with additional case manager and activity therapy

support are, at times, taxed to their limit [in] maintaining  the

boys adequately.  The therapists opined that a care giver for the

children  should  have  stellar  therapeutic  parenting   skills,

saintly   patience,  and  an  extensive  working   knowledge   of

developmental issues of emotionally disturbed children.

          The  psychological evaluation of Alden conducted by Dr.

Thomas  McKnight suggests that Aldens parenting abilities do  not

approach these requirements.  Dr. McKnight opined that Alden most

likely  has limited to no insight into the needs of his  children

or  the  realities of a parent-child relationship.  Additionally,

he  concluded  that Aldens desire to assume parent responsibility

for   his   boys   is  admirable  but  there  is  no   reasonable

psychological   probability  he  can  provide  the   environment,

support, and stability these children need . . . .

          Even  if  Aldens  children did not have special  needs,

Master  Hitchcocks  decision would not  have  been  an  abuse  of

discretion because the evidence offered by Alden to show that  he

had  overcome  the problems that led the department to  institute

termination proceedings was weak.  The departments original  case

plan for family reunification required that Alden (1) complete an

anger  management assessment and follow all recommendations,  (2)

attend  on  an  ongoing basis AA/NA/CA meetings, (3)  complete  a

state  certified  substance  abuse program,  and  (4)  enter  and

complete  parenting  class.  Alden submitted evidence  to  Master

Hitchcock  indicating  that he had completed  a  substance  abuse

program.   The evidence that he complied with the other  criteria

was flimsy.

          The  only  evidence in the record that  Alden  attended

twelve-step programs, and the main evidence that he addressed his

anger management issues29 or attended parenting classes,30 is found

in  a May 10, 2002 letter from James Barrett.31  Master Hitchcock

had   good   reasons  to  question  Barretts   credibility.    In

preparation  for  his  psychological  evaluation  of  Alden,  Dr.

McKnight  reviewed  a psychological report of Alden  prepared  by

Barrett.   Dr.  McKnight  noted in his report  that  Barrett  was

unqualified to conduct a psychological evaluation  and  may  have

done  so  in  violation  of Washington  law.   Additionally,  Dr.

McKnight   determined  that  Barrett  performed  the   evaluation

incompetently.   Consequently,  it  was  reasonable  for   Master

Hitchcock to discount the credibility of Barretts letter.

          Even  if  Barrett  was credible, the letter  was  scant

evidence  of  Aldens  rehabilitation.  It asserted  that  he  had

completed  anger management classes while incarcerated,  attended

two  twelve-step meetings per week, and that one of  the  primary

goals  of  Aldens  500  hour Drug Abuse Program  was  to  improve

parenting  skills.  It did not discuss the scope of Aldens  anger

management classes or the extent to which the Drug Abuse  Program

focused  on  parenting skills.  Additionally, it  only  reflected

Aldens  participation in twelve-step programs up until May  2002.

There was no indication in the record whether Alden continued  to

seek treatment after this date.  We are not firmly convinced that

Master Hitchcock was mistaken based on this evidence.

          Because the record demonstrated that Alden did not have

the  ability  to  properly  care for the  special  needs  of  his

children, and because the evidence offered by Alden to prove  his

rehabilitation  was weak, the superior court did  not  abuse  its

discretion in denying a hearing under Rita T.

     D.   The  Superior  Court Did Not Abuse  Its  Discretion  in
          Failing To Hold a De Novo Hearing.
          
          Alden  claims that the superior court erred in  denying

him  a hearing de novo to review Master Hitchcocks recommendation

that the superior court deny Aldens motion for visitation.  Alden

first  requested a hearing in his objections to Master Hitchcocks

report pursuant to Alaska Child in Need of Aid (CINA) Rule  4(f),

          which states that the superior court may permit oral argument,

order the taking of further evidence, or grant a hearing de  novo

in response to objections to a masters report or recommendations.

By  specifying that a superior court may permit hearings or  oral

arguments,  CINA  Rule  4(f)(1) invests  a  superior  court  with

discretion to grant or deny such a proceeding.

          We  conclude that the superior court did not abuse  its

discretion  in  denying a hearing.  In his  objection  to  Master

Hitchcocks  report, Alden argued that he should have received  an

evidentiary  hearing  in  order to  present  evidence  and  cross

examine  adverse parties and witnesses.  Alden failed to mention,

however, what new evidence he intended to present at the  hearing

or  explain why such evidence was absent from his submissions  to

Master Hitchcock.  It is within the superior courts discretion to

deny   a   hearing  requested  for  the  purpose  of   presenting

unspecified evidence.

          Alden  also  suggested that because he has submitted  a

great  deal  of evidence . . . [h]e should at least be  presented

with  the opportunity to present this evidence at a hearing.   It

is  also well within the discretion of the superior court to deny

Alden  the  opportunity to duplicate an earlier  presentation  of

evidence.

          Lastly,  Alden argued that he should have been  allowed

to  cross-examine witnesses, especially the childrens therapists.

But  Alden  does not indicate how an opportunity to cross-examine

witnesses  would  have  illuminated the evidence  presented.   He

repeated  his  argument that the opinions of the therapists  were

not  reliable  because neither of them had met  Alden.   We  have

already  rejected  this  argument.   Moreover,  Alden  made  this

argument  in  his  response  to the departments  oppositions  and

Master Hitchcock was aware of it when he made his findings.

          Finally,   even  if  the  superior  court  abused   its

discretion, Alden is not entitled to relief because  he  has  not

alleged  any prejudice resulting from the superior courts  denial

of a hearing.32  A party on appeal who alleges that oral argument

was improperly denied must show both that the denial was in error

and  that  the error caused substantial prejudice.33  Neither  in

support  of  his request for a hearing, nor in this  appeal,  has

Alden advanced one argument that he was unable to make before the

master or list any evidence that he could not present.  He argued

only  that  he  deserved to fully present  the  evidence  he  had

already  provided  at  a  hearing and that  he  should  have  the

opportunity  to cross-examine the witnesses.  Because  Alden  has

not  alleged  any prejudice, any error by the superior  court  in

denying a hearing is not reversible.

V.   CONCLUSION

          Because  enforcing  the relinquishment  was  not  plain

error,  because  the department did not abuse its  discretion  in

denying  Alden  contact with his children, because  the  superior

court  did not abuse its discretion in denying a Rita T. hearing,

and  because  the superior court did not abuse its discretion  in

denying a de novo hearing, we AFFIRM the decision of the superior

court.

_______________________________
     1     Pseudonyms  have  been  used for  all  family  members
throughout this opinion in order to protect their identities.

     2     Alden  voluntarily  relinquished his  parental  rights
pursuant  to  AS  25.23.180(b):  All  rights  of  a  parent  with
reference to a child, including the right to receive notice of  a
hearing  on a petition for adoption, may be relinquished and  the
relationship of parent and child terminated by a writing . . . .

     3     Appellee Office of Childrens Services is the successor
to  the  Division  of  Family and Youth Services  in  the  Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services.  It is referred  to  in
this opinion as the department.

     4    623 P.2d 344 (Alaska 1981).

     5     In re Adoption of Keith M.W., 79 P.3d 623, 625 (Alaska
2003).

     6     D.J.  v.  P.C.,  36  P.3d 663,  667-68  (Alaska  2001)
(quoting  Broeckel v. State, Dept of Corrections, 941  P.2d  893,
897 (Alaska 1997)).

     7     Brynna  B. v. State, Dept of Health & Soc. Servs.,  88
P.3d 527, 529 (Alaska 2004).

     8     Id.  (quoting  A.B. v. State, Dept of  Health  &  Soc.
Servs., 7 P.3d 946, 950 (Alaska 2000)).

     9    C.L. v. P.C.S., 17 P.3d 769, 772 (Alaska 2001) (finding
of  good  cause to deviate from Indian Child Welfare  Act  (ICWA)
placement preferences is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

     10    Faulkner v. Goldfuss, 46 P.3d 993, 996 (Alaska 2002).

     11    Stinson v. Holder, 996 P.2d 1238, 1242 (Alaska 2000).

     12     Perry  v. Newkirk, 871 P.2d 1150, 1153 (Alaska  1994)
(citing  Stephen  B. Presser, The Historical  Background  of  the
American  Law  of Adoption, 11 J. Fam. L. 443 (1972));  see  also
S.J. v. L.T., 727 P.2d 789, 797 (Alaska 1986).

     13    79 P.3d 623 (Alaska 2003).

     14    Id. at 627.

     15    Id.

     16    D.J. v. P.C., 36 P.3d 663, 667-68 (Alaska 2001).  Alden
concedes that the plain error standard applies.

     17     Id.  (quoting Broeckel v. State, Dept of Corrections,
941 P.2d 893, 897 (Alaska 1997)).

     18     The  relinquishment deemed conditional in Keith  M.W.
contained such language:  If the adoption [by the Wilsons] is not
completed, I understand that this relinquishment will be  voided.
79 P.3d at 627.

     19      Master   Hitchcock  did  not  address  whether   the
relinquishment  merely expressed Aldens desire  that  any  future
adoption  decree  include a visitation  provision.   Nor  do  we.
Because  superior courts are afforded discretion to fashion  open
adoption  decrees, AS 25.23.130(c), Matter of  A.F.M.,  960  P.2d
602,  605-06  (Alaska  1998), a natural  parent  is  entitled  to
request  the  inclusion of visitation rights in a future  decree.
Alaskas   general   prohibition  on  conditional  relinquishments
forbids,  however, the conditioning of a voluntary relinquishment
of  parental rights on the eventual inclusion of such  visitation
rights.

     20    See Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559, 568-69 n.10 (Alaska
App.  1989)  (discussing doctrine of invited  error:  party  that
requested  instruction not entitled to obtain reversal  based  on
giving of instruction).

     21     623  P.2d 344 (Alaska 1981).  The departments concern
that  Rita  T.  reflects  an  anachronistic  emphasis  on  family
reunification is misplaced.  Rita T. does not privilege a parents
desire  to  regain custody over the best interests of the  child.
Entitlement to a Rita T. hearing requires a parent to  show  both
that  she  is rehabilitated and that she is currently capable  of
providing  the  care  and guidance that  will  serve  the  moral,
emotional, mental and physical welfare of the child[.]    Id.  at
347 (quoting AS 47.05.060).

     22    Id. at 347.

     23    Id.

     24    Id.

     25    Id.

     26    Id. (quoting AS 47.05.060).

     27     Because  Master Hitchcock reviewed evidence  both  of
Aldens  rehabilitation and parenting capabilities and the special
needs of his children, we do not decide whether a court would  be
justified  in relying solely upon evidence provided by  a  childs
therapist.

     28    Rita T., 623 P.2d at 347.

     29     Alden  also  contends  that notes  from  a  telephone
conversation  with  the  case worker for  his  children,  Heather
Rough,  constituted evidence that he completed  anger  management
classes.  The notes read: 4/23/02 TCT [Alden H] - 6:30 pm .  .  .
Released now, in halfway house . . . 500 in patient program /  40
hr  drug  class / Anger mngmt.  Currently checking into parenting
classes.  April 19th 1999  clean/sober.  It is not at  all  clear
from  these notes that Heather Rough was intending to record that
Alden  had  told  her  that  he  had completed  anger  management
classes.   Moreover, even if it was clear that Alden communicated
to  Rough that he had done so, this fact does not establish  that
Alden actually completed anger management classes.

     30     Roughs  notes also mention that Alden  was  Currently
checking  into parenting classes.  This implies that he  had  not
completed any parenting classes in prison.

     31     Associate  Director of the New Directions  Outpatient
Clinic,  a  substance abuse and mental health clinic in  Spokane,
Washington.

     32    Bennett v. Hedglin, 995 P.2d 668, 674 (Alaska 2000).

     33    Id. (citing Cleary Diving Servs., Inc. v. Thomas, Head
& Greisen, 688 P.2d 940, 942 (Alaska 1984)).