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


Touch N' Go
, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Sherry R. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (8/29/2014) sp-6949

Sherry R. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (8/29/2014) sp-6949

         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, email  

                                                                                   

         corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us.  



                   THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA  



SHERRY R.,                                           )  

                                                     )        Supreme Court No. S-15376  

                  Appellant,                         )  

                                                     )        Superior Court No. 4FA-09-00122 CN  

         v.                                          )  

                                                     )        O P I N I O N  

STATE OF ALASKA,                                     )  

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &                               )       No. 6949 - August 29, 2014  

SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF                           )  

CHILDREN'S SERVICES,                                 )  

                                                     )  

                  Appellee.                          )  

_______________________________ )  



                  Appeal  from  the  Superior  Court  of  the  State  of  Alaska,  

                  Fourth Judicial District, Fairbanks, Michael A. MacDonald,  

                                                                  

                  Judge.  



                  Appearances:  Dianne  Olsen,  Law  Office  of  Diane  Olsen,  

                  Anchorage, for Appellant.  David A. Wilkinson, Assistant  

                  Attorney  General,  Fairbanks,  and  Michael  C.  Geraghty,  

                  Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.   



                  Before:   Fabe, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen, and  

                                                                                

                  Bolger, Justices.  



                  STOWERS, Justice.  



I.       INTRODUCTION  

                  Sherry R. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son Jake.1  

                                                                         



She challenges the superior court's rulings that: (1) she failed to remedy the conduct that  

                                                                



         1        Pseudonyms have been used  to  protect  the privacy of the family members.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                    

made Jake a child in need of aid (CINA); (2) the State of Alaska, Department of Health  



                                 

and Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to  



reunify  her  with  Jake;  and  (3)  termination  of  her  parental  rights  was  in  Jake's  best  



interests.   



                    The  record  amply  supports  the  superior  court's  decision  to  terminate  



Sherry's parental rights. We affirm.  



II.	      FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  



                                                                                   

                    Sherry is the mother of Jake and his twin sister Karen.  We affirmed the  

termination of Sherry's parental rights to her four older children in 2003.2  



          A.	       The  Prior  Termination  Proceeding  Involving  Sherry's  Four  Older  

                    Children  



                    In the prior case we observed that Sherry had "struggled with drug and  

                         



alcohol  abuse  for  many  years,"  participating  in  seven  separate  treatment  programs  

                                                                                                   



                                                                       3  

between 1996 and 2001 but completing just two.   Sherry renewed her drinking and use  

                                                                  



of crack cocaine following her successful completion of the first residential treatment  



                           4  

                                We  observed  that  while  Sherry  "recognize[d]  that  she  has  had  

program  in  1999.                                                                                            



                                                                                                                 5  

problems with alcohol," she continued to "relapse[] . . . a number of times."   We also  



                                                                                                                   

observed that Sherry's sobriety was "a relatively new phenomenon in her life," and while  



                                                                                                         

we echoed the superior court's commendation of Sherry's progress, we affirmed that this  



          2         See Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family &   



Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896, 897 (Alaska 2003).  



          3         Id . at 898.  



          4         Id . at 899-900.  



          5         Id . at 902.  



                                                              -2-	                                                       6949
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

progress was not sufficiently timely to demonstrate that Sherry remedied the conduct that   

placed her children in need of aid.6  



                     Substance  abuse  was  only  one  of  the  many  challenges  Sherry  faced  



                                                    7  

parenting her four older children.   She had relationships with men who were abusive,  



                                                                                              8  

including with the father of her four older children, David E.   When Sherry met Jerry  



                                                        

B., the father of Jake and Karen, he was a serious felony repeat-offender who had spent  



                                                                                                                 9  

30  years  in  and  out  of  prison,  including  for  sexually  abusing  a  minor.     Even  after  



                                                                                          

learning of Jerry's conviction for sexual abuse of a minor, Sherry was reluctant to sever  

ties with him.10  Sherry also failed to demonstrate her acceptance or understanding of her  



                                                                                                

older children's special needs and disabilities, in spite of being confronted with evidence  



        

that three of them suffered from alcohol-affected diagnoses likely brought on by Sherry's  

consumption of alcohol during her pregnancies.11  



          B.         The Current Termination Proceeding Involving Jake  



                                                                                                                 

                     This appeal challenges the termination of Sherry's parental rights to Jake,  



                                                                                                         

born July 19, 2003.  Jake is now 11 years old and has been in and out of institutional  



                                                                                  

facilities since November 2009.  OCS first took legal custody of Jake and his twin sister  



                                                                        

Karen on March 1, 2004, when the children were close to a year old.  According to  



Sherry,  Jerry  called  OCS  because  Sherry  was  "smoking  crack";  but  both  children  



          6         Id . at 902-03.
  



          7         Id . at 903.
  



          8
        Id . at 897, 900, 903.  



          9         Id . at 900.  



          10        Id .  



          11        Id . at 903.  



                                                                -3-                                                          6949
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

remained in Sherry's home, and OCS provided substance abuse referrals, visits from a                                



public  health  nurse,  and  child  protection  day  care.    The  twins  were  removed  from  



Sherry's physical custody a month later after police were called to her home following  



a domestic disturbance.  Sherry had "blacked out" and later assaulted a police officer  



                                                

who had arrived on the scene to assist; subsequent testing revealed Sherry had a blood  



alcohol content of .354%.  



                                                                                                                           

                     OCS instituted a case plan for Sherry and attempted trial visits for her with  



                                                                                          

the   twins;   it   provided   substance   abuse   evaluations,   substance   abuse   treatment,  



                                                  

counseling, random urinalysis, child care, and other services during this time.  Two trial  



                                                                   

visits in February 2005 and October 2005 resulted in the children's removal - the first  



                                             

time  because  Sherry  tested  positive  for  cocaine,  and  the  second  time  because  Jerry  



                                                                                 

returned home to find Sherry passed out drunk, Jake covered in feces, and Karen playing  



                      

with a crack  pipe.  Jake and Karen remained in OCS's custody following this latest  



removal until OCS inexplicably transferred physical custody to Jerry in December 2006,  



                                                                                          

despite his status as a convicted sex offender, and despite our prior opinion in Sherry R.  



                                                                                                    12  

                                                                                                         In the words of the  

clearly faulting Sherry for exposing her older children to Jerry. 



OCS case worker, OCS made this placement decision because Sherry's substance abuse  

                                                                                    



made Jerry look like "a better choice for placement."  OCS closed the original CINA  

                                                                                       



case in December 2006 after it transferred custody to Jerry.  



                     Jerry sexually abused Karen over the three years the twins were placed in  

                                                                                                  



his care, and currently is serving a long-term prison sentence for this crime.  Six-year-old  

                                    



Karen disclosed the sexual abuse to OCS, and that disclosure prompted a re-opening of  

                                                                                



the twins' CINA case in September 2009.  Jerry also terrorized Jake while Jake was in  

                                                                                    



his care.  Jerry hit Jake, grabbed him, swore at him unrelentingly, pushed him down  

                



           12        Id . at 900.  



                                                                 -4-                                                               6949  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                        

stairs,  and  the  superior  court  noted  that  it  was  "highly  likely  that  [Jake]  witnessed  



some . . . sexual abuse" of Karen by Jerry, such that Jake was "irreparably traumatized."  



                                                                                                       

Despite witnessing Jerry abusing Jake, and suspecting that Jerry was sexually abusing  



               

Karen as early as April 2009, Sherry did not report Jerry to OCS or law enforcement  



personnel; instead, she moved in with him and the children in June 2009.  



                    Sherry   retained   physical   custody   of   the   children   following   Jerry's  



                                                                                            

incarceration, and she lived with them in the Interior Alaska Center for Non-Violent  



                                                                                                   

Living shelter.  In October 2009 OCS received a call from shelter personnel reporting  



                                                                                            

that Jake was "acting out."  OCS accompanied Sherry and Jake to the hospital, where she  



refused further treatment for him because he eventually calmed down.  



                    But OCS was contacted by shelter personnel just a month later, this time  



                                                                                                                13  

because  Jake  was  "out  of  control"  with  "some  major  behavioral  issues."                                      Sherry  



                                                           

admitted that she could not meet Jake's needs on her own.  This time, Sherry chose not  



                                                                                                         

to accompany six-year-old Jake to the hospital. Jake spent a night alone in the Fairbanks  



                                                                  

hospital before being admitted to North Star Behavioral Health in Anchorage, where he  



stayed  for  two  months.    OCS  filed  an  emergency  petition  for  adjudication  and  for  



temporary custody upon Jake's transfer to North Star.  OCS also drafted a case plan that  



required Sherry to complete urinalysis, attend therapy, engage in sober support systems  



such as Alcoholics Anonymous, and undergo substance abuse evaluations.  



                    At  North  Star  Jake  was  diagnosed  with  "posttraumatic  stress  disorder,  



attention  deficit  hyperactive  disorder,  oppositional  defiant  disorder,  and  pervasive  



developmental disorder."  Jake continued to act out, including kicking and cursing at the  



          13  

                                                                                                             

                    Although Jake was throwing furniture, running through the halls, yelling  

                                                          

profanity, hitting walls, ripping papers and brochures off the walls and tearing them up,  

scratching and biting, and attacking Sherry and Karen, Sherry had to be "convinced" by  

the shelter to call OCS.  



                                                             -5-                                                           6949  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

North Star staff, and he talked about killing himself.                       Sherry initially refused to approve  



medication for Jake and blamed others for his misbehavior.  



                                                                                            

                   In  January  2010  Jake  was  transferred  to  the  Residential  Diagnostic  



Treatment  Center  in  Fairbanks,  and  in  March  2010  Sherry  stipulated  to  Jake's  



adjudication and disposition as a child in need of aid due to abandonment, parental  



                                         14  

                                               Sherry  also  stipulated  that  OCS  had  been  making  

incarceration,  and  neglect. 



reasonable reunification efforts, that custody with OCS was in Jake's best interests, and  



                                       

that OCS's case plan was appropriately tailored toward the reunification of the family.  



                    OCS referred Sherry for psychological evaluation and updated her case plan  



                                                     

to reflect that evaluation.  OCS also referred Sherry for weekly sessions with a therapist,  



and encouraged her participation in the Resource Center for Parents and Children's  



                                                      

family reunification programs.  OCS continued to provide urinalysis for Sherry and refer  



her to sobriety support groups, including Alcoholics Anonymous and Changing Patterns.  



                                                                                                                

                    Sherry did not complete the Changing Patterns sobriety support group, and  



she discontinued individual therapy after her first therapist moved away in June 2011  

because she did not think the second OCS-referred therapist was "quite a good fit."15  



                            

Sherry's progress at the Resource Center for Parents and Children was slow, and OCS  



                                                                                                           

was concerned that she was generally "overwhelmed" when it came to parenting her  



children.  



                                                           

                   In April 2011 OCS filed a petition to terminate Sherry's parental rights on  



the  basis  of  her  inconsistent  attendance  at  Alcoholics  Anonymous  meetings,  little  



                                                                                                           

progress in the reunification program at the Resource Center for Parents and Children,  



                                                                                 

and her persistent failure to take responsibility for Jake coming into OCS custody.  OCS  



          14       See AS 47.10.011(1), (2), (9).  



          15        This second therapist, Cathy Weeg, specialized in personality disorders.  



                                                             -6-                                                          6949  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                                             

held that petition in abeyance, however, because at that time Jake's behavioral problems  



were so severe that a skilled "[a]doption [placement] wasn't viable, placement . . . with  



[Sherry] wasn't viable, [and] guardianship wasn't viable."  



                                                                       

                     Jake remained at the Residential Diagnostic Treatment Center until June or  



                                                      

July of 2011.  Sherry and Karen visited him about three to four times per week, but  



                         

Sherry became "extremely frustrated" with the staff at the Center because, in her own  



                       

words, "there are certain [staff there] . . . that don't deserve to have their jobs."  Jake had  



periodic outbursts during Sherry's visits, and following one particularly bad visit Jake  



                                       

was so out of control he had to be sent back to North Star until his behavior and mood  



                                                                                    

stabilized.  Sherry did not agree with Jake's course of treatment at the Center, claiming  



that Jake was placed in a small room and locked up, and she didn't believe "that's ok at  



                                                                                                            

all to do to a child" because it "traumatize[d] him more" and added "insult to injury"  



being in a "seclusion room."  



                                                                                                     

                     Jake was ultimately transferred to Jasper Mountain, a residential treatment  



                                                                           

center in Oregon.  Sherry called Jake twice per week and had a weekly family therapy  



             

session  via Skype; she received email feedback from Jake's therapist, Ryan Adams,  



following these sessions on how to effectively communicate and intervene to prevent  



                              16  

Jake's  meltdowns.                  OCS  also  facilitated  Sherry's  participation  in  monthly  team  



                                                                                                                  

meetings on Jake's progress, either in-person at Jasper Mountain, or over the phone.  In  



                                                                          

her emails to Adams, Sherry lamented that Jake "is never going to be a perfect child" and  



                                                                                          

asserted that Jake was "tired of watching other children go home [while] he is still there."  



                                                 

Sherry shared with Adams that she thought the Residential Diagnostic Treatment Center  



                                                                                            

(Jake's  last  placement  site)  "used  [all  kinds]  of  stuff  to  keep  him  there  seemingly  



          16  

                                                                                  

                     Sherry alleges that she was not aware these video conferencing sessions  

                                                                                       

were family therapy with specific goals in mind.  Adams testified that he could not "think  

                                                                       

of a reason why [Sherry] would think that she [hadn't] been involved in family therapy."  



                                                                 -7-                                                              6949  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

forever  .  .  .  punish[ing]  him  for  days."    Adams  later  testified  that  Sherry  was  



                                                  

"inconsisten[t]" in her support of the adults in Jake's life - e.g. Jake's therapeutic foster  



                                                                                    

family and the staff at Jasper Mountain - and Adams opined that this contributed to  



                                                                                                  

Jake not feeling "safe" and progressing slowly in his treatment.  Adams testified that,  



                                                                     

despite Sherry's good intentions for Jake, she was "unpredictable with her mood," and  



                                                                                     

often sided with Jake when he conflicted with authority figures, thus "unintentionally  



validat[ing] that [Jake] can act out with adults and not listen to their directions."  In  



Adams's professional opinion, Sherry's inability to consistently "encourage [Jake] to  



                                                        

follow directions from all the adults in his life" meant that she could not provide him  



with the emotional support he needed to move forward with treatment.  



                    In August 2011, shortly after Jake was admitted to Jasper Mountain, Sherry  



                                                                                                        

took a hair strand test that was positive for cocaine and cocaethylene.  Around this time  



the Resource Center for Parents and Children discontinued reunification services with  



                                                                                    

Sherry.  Sherry alleged that she and the Resource Center mutually agreed to discontinue  



                                                                 

services, but OCS was informed that Sherry was noncompliant, not making any progress,  



and didn't feel like "she was getting anything out of it."  



                                                       

                    In October 2011 OCS updated Sherry's case plan and referred her to a  



therapist,  Cathy  Weeg,  who  specialized  in  personality  disorders.    Sherry  was  also  



                                         

required  to  continue  with  her  substance  abuse  services  and  to  seek  out  permanent  



                                                                                             

housing, as she had been living in the Center For Non-Violent Living shelter for over a  



                                                               

year.  As discussed previously, Sherry did not believe Cathy Weeg "was quite a good fit"  



and stopped attending sessions.  And in February 2012 Sherry again tested positive for  



                                                                                           

cocaine and cocaethylene; following this second positive test result Karen was removed  



from Sherry's physical custody.  Sherry told nine-year-old Jake that Karen was removed  



                                                                              

because Sherry "had a test done and it said that [she] had been using drugs, so [OCS] put  



[Karen] with somebody to make sure that she's safe."  Sherry was allegedly "baffled"  



                                                              -8-                                                        6949
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

by these test results, told Jake she didn't "know how [the test results] happened," and  

      



continues to argue in the present appeal that she never stipulated to the reliability or     



accuracy of the results.  



                      In March 2012 OCS referred Sherry to Dr. Marti Cranor for a psychological  



                                                                                       

evaluation and parenting-capacity assessment.  Dr. Cranor had evaluated Sherry in the  



                                                                         

prior CINA case involving her four oldest children.  Dr. Cranor concluded that Sherry  



was highly deficient in the psychological and emotional characteristics required to parent  



                                                                     

her children, noting that she was highly emotional, demanding, distrustful, and brash.  



                                                                                                  

Dr. Cranor was concerned with Sherry's substance abuse, her tendency to relapse after  



months or years of sobriety, and her "entrenched denial" of her problems.  Dr. Cranor  



                                        

estimated it would take approximately nine-and-a-half to thirteen years of treatment for  



Sherry to overcome her parenting deficiencies.  At the time of the assessment Jake was  



                                    

nine; thus, assuming the lowest estimate was accurate, Jake would reach majority before  



                                                      

Sherry  would  be  deemed  (in  Dr.  Cranor's  assessment)  competent  to  parent  him,  



assuming Sherry participated in treatment.  



                                                              

                      OCS updated Sherry's case plan following Dr. Cranor's assessment; the  



update required Sherry to complete ongoing drug testing, family therapy, individual  



therapy, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and outpatient substance abuse treatment.  



                    

Sherry was referred to outpatient substance abuse treatment at Hope Counseling, and she  



began attending individual therapy there with Valerie Gifford in August 2012.  Gifford  



testified  regarding  Sherry's  consistent  attendance  at,  and  admirable  progress  in,  



                                                                                                  

individual therapy, but admitted numerous times that she had never spoken directly to  



                                                                                                 

Jake's therapist, and had not worked with Sherry on how to adequately respond to and  



                          

support Jake's treatment.  Sherry began outpatient substance abuse treatment at Hope  



Counseling  and  was  mostly  consistent  in  her  attendance  at  Alcoholics  Anonymous  



meetings during this period.  



                                                                      -9-                                                               6949
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                    In July 2012 OCS filed a second termination petition, citing Dr. Cranor's  

                                                                                          



assessment, Sherry's inability to learn appropriate parenting skills, her ongoing substance  



abuse as evidenced by her recent positive drug test results, her confrontations with Jake's  

                                                                                        



treatment staff at Jasper Mountain, and the disruptions her visits to Jasper Mountain  



                                                        

caused Jake.  In October 2012 OCS requested that Dr. Cranor provide an addendum to  



                                                                                                                       

the March 2012 psychological evaluation and parenting-capacity assessment based on  



                                                                                                          

more updated information regarding the services provided to Sherry, her progress, and  



Jake's treatment.  None of this additional information changed Dr. Cranor's opinion of  



                                                                                         

Sherry's ability to parent Jake, because in her view Sherry "was not making progress in  



her therapy . . . in terms of being able to more effectively intervene with [Jake] when  



                                           

[his]  behavior  got  out  of  control."    In  November  2012  another  hair  strand  test  



administered on Sherry was positive for cocaine.  



                                                                                                          

                    A termination trial was scheduled for January 2013, but the superior court  



                                                                                                                        

continued the proceedings for two more months at Sherry's counsel's request.  During  



this period, Sherry completed two parenting classes, and Karen was returned to Sherry's  



                                                     

physical custody on a trial basis.  Sherry also completed vocational rehabilitation and  



started a scrap metal salvaging business.  



                                                                                          

                    The termination trial took place in June 2013. The superior court found that  



Sherry's  consistent  positive  drug  test  results  and  interference  with  Jake's  treatment  



                                                                               

demonstrated her failure to remedy the conduct and conditions that made Jake a child in  



                                                                                     

need of aid.  The court found that OCS had provided years of counseling, parenting  



                                                                                          

education,  case  planning,  visitation,  and  encouragement  and  support  -  yet  Sherry  



                                     

continued her drug use and angry and disruptive outbursts in spite of these reasonable  



                                        

efforts.  Finally, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was  



in Jake's best interests.  



                    Sherry appeals.  



                                                              -10-                                                         6949
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

III.       STANDARD OF REVIEW  



                     In a CINA termination proceeding we review a superior court's factual  



                                    17  

findings for clear error.               Factual findings "are clearly erroneous if review of the entire  



                                                                                                                                   18  

                                    

record leaves us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." 



                                                                                              

"Conflicting evidence is generally insufficient to overturn the superior court, and we will  



                                                              

not reweigh evidence when the record provides clear support for the superior court's  



            19  

                                               

ruling."        "Whether a child is in need of aid and whether the parent failed to remedy the  



                                                             

'conduct or the conditions that placed the child at substantial risk' of harm are factual  



                                                      20  

findings reviewed for clear error."                       Best interests findings are also factual findings  



                                     21  

                                                          

reviewed for clear error.                "Whether OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family  



                                                     22 

                                                         "When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact,  

is a mixed question of law and fact. 



          17         Christina J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's  



Servs., 254 P.3d 1095, 1103 (Alaska 2011) (citing Maisy W. v. State, Dep't of Health &  

                                                                                              

Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1267 (Alaska 2008)).  



          18         Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's  

                                                                                                                 

Servs.,  290  P.3d  421,  427-28  (Alaska  2012)  (quoting Barbara  P.  v.  State,  Dep't  of  

                            

Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs. , 234 P.3d 1245, 1253 (Alaska 2010))  

                

(internal quotation marks omitted).  



          19  

                                                                                     

                    Id. at 428 (quoting Maisy W. , 175 P.3d at 1267) (internal quotation marks  

omitted).  



          20  

                                                                                                     

                    Id. (quoting Pravat P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of  

                                                                                               

Children's Servs., 249 P.3d 264, 270 (Alaska 2011)) (internal quotation marks omitted).  



          21        Id. (citing Christina J., 254 P.3d at 1104).  



          22        Id . (citation omitted).  



                                                               -11-                                                          6949
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

we review factual questions under the clearly erroneous standard and legal questions  

using our independent judgment."23  



IV.	       DISCUSSION  



                                                                                                                  

                     In order to terminate parental rights under AS 47.10.088, a superior court  



                                                                                                                       

must find by clear and convincing evidence that:  (1) a child is in need of aid under at  



least one of the subsections listed in AS 47.10.011; (2) the parent has not remedied the  



                                                                                                                             

conduct or conditions that caused the child to be in need of aid or that returning the child  



                                                                                                        

to the parent would put the child at substantial risk of physical or mental injury; and (3)  



                                                                                                              

OCS has made reasonable efforts to provide family support services to the child and to  



                  24  

the  parent.            The  court  must  also  find  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence  that  

termination is in the child's best interests.25  



                     Sherry does not challenge on appeal that Jake is a child in need of aid.  



Thus, we only address the superior court's findings and conclusions on Sherry's failure  

                                                                     



to timely remedy her conduct, OCS's reasonable efforts, and Jake's best interests.  



           A.	       The Superior Court Did Not Err In Finding That Sherry Failed To  

                     Remedy The Conduct And Conditions That Made Jake A Child In  

                                                                                                                            

                     Need Of Aid.  



                     In order to terminate parental rights, the superior court must find by clear  

                                                                                                                              



and convincing evidence that the parent has failed, within a reasonable time, to remedy  

                                                                                                                  



                                                                                                          26  

the  conduct  that  placed  the  child  at  substantial  risk  of  harm.                                         In  making  this  

                                          



determination, the court may consider "any fact relating to the best interests of the child,"  

                                                                                             



           23        Ben M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs.                                         ,  



204 P.3d 1013, 1018 (Alaska 2009).  



           24        AS 47.10.088(a).  



           25        AS 47.10.088(c); CINA Rule 18(c)(3).  



           26        AS 47.10.088(a)(2); CINA Rule 18(c)(1)(A)(ii).  



                                                                  -12-	                                                           6949
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

including: (1) the likelihood of returning the child to the parent within a reasonable time            



based on the child's age or needs; (2) the amount of effort by the parent to remedy the             



conduct or the conditions in the home; (3) the harm caused to the child; (4) the likelihood  



                                                     

that the harmful conduct will continue; and (5) the history of conduct by or conditions  

                                     27   "The superior court is entitled to rely on a parent's documented  

created by the parent.                                                       

history of conduct as a predictor of future behavior."28  



                                                                         

                       The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that Sherry had  



                                                                                                                                                

not timely remedied the conduct or conditions that made Jake a child in need of aid.  The  



                                                         

court found that:  (1) there were "not enough years left in [Jake]'s minority for [Sherry]  



                                                                                                                                           

to  learn  the  skills  necessary  to  become  even  a  minimally  adequate  parent";  (2)  the  



testimony of Sherry's treatment providers was not helpful because they were unaware  



of  Jake's  needs,  her  continued  drug  use,  and  her  consistent  undermining  of  Jake's  



treatment; (3) Sherry neglected Jake and continued to present a risk to his achieving  



                                                                                                              

adequate care due to her "antiauthority, disruptive personality" that had "interfered with  



                                                                       

[Jake]'s treatment throughout this case"; (4) this conduct would continue because Sherry  



had not remedied her drug abuse and her behavioral deficiencies, and thus could not  



handle  the  stresses  of  raising  Jake  as  a  special  needs  child;  and  (5)  Sherry  was  



"deeply . . . trapped" in a substance abuse cycle as evidenced by the history of the case.  



                                                  

                       Sherry argues that the superior court erred because it faulted her for not  



                                                                                                                                            

having "extraordinary parenting skills[] for a child that nobody was going to be able to  



                                                                                                                    

parent without significant challenges."  She asserts that, as a matter of constitutional law,  



her parental rights cannot be terminated without a finding of her unfitness at the time of  



            27         AS 47.10.088(b).  



            28         Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth  



Servs., 74 P.3d 896, 903 (Alaska 2003).  



                                                                        -13-                                                                       6949  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

the termination trial, and that termination cannot be solely based on her child's needs.  



                                                                                                         

She  argues  that  the  court  "ignored"  the  testimony  of  her  treatment  providers  and  



erroneously relied upon events that occurred subsequent to the termination trial.  Finally,  



                                                                                                              

Sherry avers that she had remedied her substance abuse at the time of trial, and "[e]ven  



                                                                  

if the [hair follicle test] results did accurately demonstrate drug use, the last positive test  



                                                                                                    

was  on  November  21,  2012,  [and  would]  have  reflected  use  no  later  than  August  



2012 . . . reflecting a substantial period of sobriety prior to the termination decision of  



November 5, 2013."  



                                                                                                            

                    1.	      Sherry  failed  to  timely  remedy  her  persistent  and  active  

                             interference with Jake's treatment as a child with special needs.  



                                                                                             

                   A child's special needs, and the harm caused by a parent's failure to timely  



                                                                                                                         

address those needs, have weighed heavily in our analysis of whether termination is in  

                                    29   Jake unquestionably suffers from a host of psychiatric issues  

the child's best interests.              



that require a high level of care - including "posttraumatic stress disorder, attention  

        



deficit hyperactive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and pervasive developmental  

                                                                                     



disorder."    The  superior  court  did  not  solely  focus  on  Jake's  special  needs  when  it  



discussed why Sherry had not timely remedied her conduct that made Jake a child in  



                                               

need of aid.  The superior court carefully considered Sherry's "antiauthority, disruptive  



personality";  how she "interfered with Jake's treatment throughout this case"; and how  



this conduct prevented Jake from adequately progressing in treatment and trusting the  



highly trained professionals that provided him with round-the-clock care.  



          29       See,  e.g.,  Lucy   J.   v.   State,  Dep't  of  Health  &  Soc.  Servs.,  Office  of  



Children's  Servs.,  244  P.3d  1099,  1119  (Alaska  2010)  (finding  that  a  mother's  

prioritization of her own needs before her children's needs, and her inability to provide  

the kind of consistent home that her children with special needs require, was sufficient  

                                                      

evidence to support the trial court's holding that returning the children to the mother's  

                                                      

care was likely to result in serious emotional or physical harm).  



                                                            -14-	                                                      6949
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                     The record in this case thoroughly supports these findings.  The termination     



petition  cited  Sherry's  "defiant,  disruptive,  and  disrespectful  .  .  .  conduct  at  [Jake's  



                                                         

treatment  facility]  .  .  .  [where]  her  presence  .  .  .  is  detrimental  not  only  to  [Jake]'s  



                                                                     

ongoing treatment, but also for the ongoing treatment of other children at the facility."  



                                         

This echoes the testimony of Dr. Cranor, who twice met with Sherry to perform, and then  



                                                                                                                    

update, a parenting-capacity assessment, and observed that Sherry had "a lot of problems  



                                                                                                                    

managing  [Jake's]  behavior  .  .  .  during  [her]  visits."    Dr.  Cranor  noted  that  Sherry  



"tended to blame either other residents of the program or . . . [Jake's] treatment providers  



                                                                            

for his misbehavior."  Dr. Cranor also discussed how Sherry is "a person who needs a  



                                                   

lot of attention[,] . . . [is] pretty emotional[,] . . . . [and] doesn't tolerate criticism very  



                                                                                                          

well."    Finally,  Jake's  therapist  Ryan  Adams  testified  at  trial  that  Sherry  was  



"inconsisten[t]" in her support of the adults in Jake's life, and this contributed to Jake not  



             

feeling "safe" and progressing slowly in his treatment.  Adams testified that, despite  



Sherry's good intentions for Jake, she was "unpredictable with her mood," and often  



                                            

sided  with  Jake  when  he  conflicted  with  authority  figures,  thus  "unintentionally  



                                            

validat[ing] that [Jake] can act out with adults and not listen to their directions."  In  



                                    

Adams's  professional  opinion,  Sherry's  inability  to  consistently  "encourage  Jake  to  



follow directions from all the adults in his life" meant that she could not provide him  



                                                                                                             

with the emotional support he needed to move forward with treatment.  We observe that  



Sherry  exhibited  similar  behavior  in  her  previous  CINA  case  when  she  failed  to  



                                                                                  

demonstrate her acceptance or understanding of her older children's special needs and  

disabilities.30  



                     Sherry's active undermining of the professionals who aimed to provide  



much-needed therapeutic care to Jake demonstrates a significant lack of insight into what  



          30        Sherry R., 74 P.3d at 903.  



                                                               -15-                                                              6949  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

                                                                       31  

                                       

is required to parent a special needs child.                                We agree with the superior court's analysis  



                                                                                               

that Sherry's own treatment providers could not assist the court in determining whether  



                                                                                  32  

Sherry  had  ameliorated  this  harmful  conduct.      As  the  superior  court  noted,  these  



                                                                                                         

individual care providers "were unaware of [Jake]'s needs[, and] they were unaware of  



[Sherry]'s consistently undermining [Jake]'s treatment."  



                       2.          Sherry failed to timely remedy her substance abuse issues.  



                                                                

                       In the prior CINA case involving Sherry's four older children, she argued  



                         

that "because she had been sober for approximately one year prior to the termination  



trial, she ha[d] remedied, within a reasonable time, the conduct or conditions that put her  



                                              33  

                                                                                                                                      

children  at  risk  of  harm."                       In  the  present  case  she  advances  essentially  the  same  



                                                          

argument:  that she remedied her substance abuse by the time of trial, and "[e]ven if the  



                                                                                                                          

[hair follicle test] results did accurately demonstrate drug use" they  also "reflect[] a  



substantial period of sobriety prior to the termination decision of November 5, 2013."  



            31         See In re B.W.            , 651 S.E.2d 332, 341 (Ga. App. 2007) (discussing how a                                    



mother's drug addiction and lack of parenting training negatively affected her special       

needs son's need for permanency); Matter of Welfare of D.D.K. , 376 N.W.2d 717, 722   

(Minn.  App.  1985)  (discussing  how  a  father's  chronic  unemployment  problem,  

insufficient  maturity,  and  poor  parenting  skills  would  likely  "prevent  his  being  

considered  for custody of even an average child" - much less a child with special  

                     

needs).  



            32  

                                                                

                       Sherry also asserts that the court erroneously relied on events that occurred  

                      

subsequent to the termination trial.  The court cited evidence of Sherry's disruptive  

                                         

behavior "just prior to the termination trial" and after the trial to underscore that point  

                                                                                                    

that her conduct, as a global matter, "erodes [Jake]'s trust and progress" in therapy, and  

her  "reactive  personality  prevents  her  from  being  able  to  work  with  the  treatment  

providers [Jake] so desperately requires."  These findings were not erroneous, and the  

                                                                                                              

superior court did not erroneously rely on post-termination trial events in reaching them.  



            33         Sherry R., 74 P.3d at 902.  



                                                                       -16-                                                                  6949
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

                    The superior court did not err when it found that Sherry had not timely   



remedied her substance abuse issues.  As we stated in the prior CINA case concerning      



Sherry's  four  older  children,  a  superior  court  "is  entitled  to  rely  on  a  parent's  



                                                                                                   34  

                                                                                                        Sherry's pattern of  

documented history of conduct as a predictor of future behavior." 



                                                                                   

behavior in the present case, going back to when Jake was first taken into OCS custody  



                                                                         

in 2004, demonstrates a cycle of addiction and drug abuse that continued until at least  



                                                                          

August 2012 based on Sherry's interpretation of her most recent positive hair follicle test  



           

result.  That Sherry can demonstrate a possible period of sobriety prior to the termination  



                                                          

decision in November 2013 does not compel our reversal of the superior court's factual  



                                                                 

finding on this ground.  This finding was based on clear and convincing evidence of a  



number of recent positive drug test results, as well as Sherry's decades-long history of  

relapsing following completion of rehabilitation services.35  



          B.	       The Superior Court Did Not Err In Finding That OCS Satisfied Its  

                    Obligation Of Reasonable Efforts To Effectuate Reunification; We  

                    Agree With The Superior Court That OCS Unduly Prolonged These  

                                                                                                          

                    Efforts To Jake's Detriment.  



                    Before terminating parental rights, the superior court must find by clear and  

                                                                                                             



convincing  evidence  that  OCS  has  made  reasonable  efforts  to  provide  reunification  



                                                    36  

between the parent and the child.                       As part of these "reasonable efforts," OCS must  

                               



identify, "actively offer," and refer the parent to family support services that will assist  

                                                                                                  



him or her in remedying the conduct or conditions in the home that made the child a  



          34        Id . at 903.  



          35        Id . at 902.  



          36        AS 47.10.088(a)(3).  



                                                               -17-                                                             6949  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

                              37  

                                   

child in need of aid.             When making determinations under AS 47.10.086, "the primary  



                                                                38  

                                                                                                           

consideration is the child's best interests."                        And the reasonableness of OCS's efforts  



                                                                                                  

"must be viewed in light of the entire history of services that the state ha[s] already  

provided."39  



                                                                                              

                    We have recognized that OCS maintains "some discretion in determining  



                                                                                            40  

                                                                                                We have explained that  

what efforts to pursue and whether the timing is reasonable." 

OCS's efforts must "be reasonable, but need not be perfect."41  On the other hand, OCS's  



reasonable efforts should not unduly prolong and unnecessarily burden a child's need for  



                                                             

permanency.    This  may  be  a  difficult  balance  to  strike  in  cases  like  Sherry's.    We  



conclude that OCS failed to strike the appropriate balance in this case given Sherry's  



                                                                                                               

long history with drug and alcohol abuse and persistent failure to accept her children's  



needs  and  disabilities  over  the  course  of  two  separate  CINA  cases  involving  five  



                                                                                                                

children.  Notwithstanding this conclusion, the efforts OCS made satisfied its reasonable  



efforts  obligations  under  AS  47.10.088(a)(3),  as  detailed  in  AS  47.10.086,  as  these  



statutes establish the minimum standards that OCS is required to meet.  



          37        AS 47.10.086(1)-(2).  



          38        AS 47.10.086(f).  



          39        Erica A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth       



Servs., 66 P.3d 1, 7 (Alaska 2003)  (citing E.A. v.  State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs. ,  

46 P.3d 986, 990 (Alaska 2002)).  



          40  

                                                                                            

                    Sean B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs.,  

                                                                                                                  

251 P.3d 330, 338 (Alaska 2011) (citing Jeff A.C., Jr. v. State , 117 P.3d 697, 706 (Alaska  

2005)).  



          41  

                                         

                    Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children's Servs. , 188 P.3d 668, 678 (Alaska  

                                                   

2008) (citing Jeff A.C., Jr. , 117 P.3d (noting that while the state's efforts "were not  

exemplary, neither were they unreasonable") at 706).  



                                                              -18-                                                         6949
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

                    The superior court found that OCS "heroically served [Jake]" and "hoped  



                                                                                         

against reason that [he] could be . . . reunited with his sister and his mother."  The court  



                                                                                                  

found - and we agree - that OCS did this "to a fault."  The court determined that OCS  



"extended the time to provide services and fought for reunification," providing Sherry  



with   "repeated   .   .   .   counseling,   parenting   education,   case   planning,   visitation,  



                                                                                                             

encouragement, and support" - which Sherry met with "continued drug use and angry  



outbursts against the treatment providers."  



                    Sherry  argues  that  OCS  failed  to  make  reasonable  efforts  to  provide  



                                                                                                                           

effective family therapy or parenting classes specifically for a special needs child.  She  



                                                                                                   

asserts that OCS did not provide her "with the same kind of training and supports as were  



               

provided to [Jake's therapeutic] foster family."  Finally, Sherry asserts that OCS should  



                                                                                                     

have identified her substance abuse and made reasonable efforts to provide services to  



her.  



                    OCS was well aware of Sherry's persistent substance abuse issues and  



failure  to  accept  or  comprehend  the  special  needs  of  her  children  when  it  was  first  

                                                                                          42  OCS had been involved  

                                                                                                       

contacted in 2004 and the twins where placed in OCS custody. 



with Sherry's efforts to parent Jake since he was about a year old, or roughly nine years  

                                              



at the time of trial, and had been involved with Sherry and her four older children as far  

                                                                                       

back as the 1990s.43  



                    The current CINA case was re-opened in 2009 - four years prior to the  

                                                                                                                



termination  trial.    Over  the  course  of  the  present  case  Sherry  was  referred  to  and  

                                                                              



          42        See Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family &  



Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896, 903 (Alaska 2003) (noting Sherry's long history of substance  

                                                                                             

abuse and failure to recognize, understand, or accept her four older children's special  

needs and disabilities).  



          43        Id. at 897.  



                                                             -19-                                                        6949
  


----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

                                                                                   

provided a myriad of services addressing her substance abuse, including sobriety support  



groups,  individual  therapy,  testing,  and  outpatient  substance  abuse  treatment.                                          In  



                                                                              

addition, Sherry was provided with psychological evaluations, updated case planning  



services, and reunification services at the Resource Center for Parents and Children along  



with  the  family  therapy  specific  to  Jake's  special  needs  that  Jake's  therapist,  Ryan  



                                                                                   

Adams, provided.  Adams counseled Sherry on how to effectively communicate and  



                                                             44  

                                                                 And while Sherry argues that OCS did not  

intervene to prevent Jake's meltdowns. 



provide her "with the same kind of training and supports" as Jake's therapeutic foster  



                                                                                                                        

family, Sherry admitted at trial that she got feedback from Adams constantly; at trial she  



                                                                                      

stated:  "You know, we've talked many, many times and email each other back and forth  



quite frequently."  



                                                                                 

                    Notably, Dr. Cranor stated at trial that it "really stood out" that even though  



                   

Sherry had "received a lot of services, [and] OCS got involved with [Jake and Karen]  



pretty early on in their lives[,] . . . the children . . . were [still] removed several times . . .  



                                                                                           

[and] both . . . displayed significant behavioral problems  at various points in time."  



                                                                                                  

When asked why these multiple disruptions were so detrimental to children, Dr. Cranor  



explained:  



                    [M]ultiple  removals  from  the  home,  multiple  placements,  

                    multiple transitions, [and] delayed permanence are harmful  

                    to children. . . .  [I]f a parent has had multiple opportunities  

                                                                                

                    to try to change their behavior and yet the children have had  



          44        Even though Sherry alleges that she was not aware that the Jasper Mountain   



video conferencing sessions were family therapy with specific goals in mind, emails   

from Adams to Sherry reveal that she was counseled to "focus on sending calm messages  

to [Jake] through your body and voice tone, " and not to "shy away from calling [Jake]  

                            

on [his] issues . . . .  [H]e needs to trust in the process of listening to adults," such that  

"if he starts arguing . . . tell him to back up, prompt him with the appropriate response  

                                                                                       

to your direction, and run through it again."  



                                                              -20-                                                         6949
  


----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

                       to be removed over and over and over, you                                      reach a point  

                       where the harm being done to the children by the removals                 

                       outweighs any benefit that they're getting from . . . continued                     

                       contact with their parents.  



The detriment caused to Jake by OCS's   prolonged reunification services to Sherry far  



outweighed the benefit Jake received from Sherry's continually disruptive contact.                                                           We  



echo  the  superior  court's  conclusion  that  OCS  unreasonably  "extended   the  time  to  



provide services and fought for reunification,"   providing Sherry with "repeated . . .  



counseling, parenting education, case planning, visitation, encouragement, and support"  



-  much  to  Jake's  disadvantage  in  achieving  a  sense  of  continuity,  structure,  and  



permanency,  even  if  adoptive  placement  was  not  an  immediately  viable  option.  



                                                           

Nevertheless, it is clear that OCS satisfied the requirements of AS 47.10.088(a)(3) to  



make reasonable efforts, and the superior court did not err in so finding.  



                                                             

           C.	         The Superior Court Properly Concluded That Terminating Sherry's  

                       Parental Rights Was In Jake's Best Interests.  



                                                             

                       Before parental rights may be terminated, the superior court must also find  

                                                                                                                                           45  In  

                                                                                                                                               

by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the child's best interests. 



making this determination, the superior court may consider the same factors used to  

                                                       



determine whether a parent remedied her conduct within a reasonable time, as set forth  



                                                                                                                        

above:  (1) the likelihood of returning the child to the parent within a reasonable time  



                                                                                                     

based on the child's age or needs; (2) the amount of effort by the parent to remedy the  



conduct or the conditions in the home; (3) the harm caused to the child; (4) the likelihood  



                                                                                                                        

that the harmful conduct will continue; and (5) the history of conduct by or conditions  



           45          AS 47.10.088(c); CINA Rule 18(c)(3).  



                                                                      -21-                                                                     6949  


----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

                                   46  

created by the parent.                 The court also may consider the presence or lack of favorable  

placements.47  



                                                     

                     The superior court found "by a preponderance of the evidence, indeed by  



                                                                               

clear and convincing evidence," that termination was in Jake's best interests.  The court  



                                                                                                  

stated that Jake was "currently in the care of . . . highly skilled therapeutic foster parents"  



                                                     

and "[b]y terminating [Sherry]'s parental rights and committing [Jake] to the Department  



                                                                                                                 

of Health and Social Services, the court is aware that [Jake] may never find an adoptive  



                                                                                  

home."  However, the court believed "that future is better for [Jake] than returning to the  



certain harm he would suffer in [Sherry]'s care."  



                                                                                    

                     Sherry argues that the court's focus on Jake's return to her physical care is  



                                                                             

misplaced, as she did not request his immediate return to her care.  She believes that the  

superior court did not adequately consider the importance of Jake's bond to her.48  



           46        AS 47.10.088(b).  



           47        Sean B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs.                                        ,  



251 P.3d 330, 339 (Alaska 2011) (citing Karrie B. ex rel. Reep v. Catherine J. , 181 P.3d  

177, 185 (Alaska 2008)).  



           48        Sherry relies on the dissenting opinion in Thea G. v. State, Dep't of Health  



& Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 291 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2013) (Carpeneti, J.,  

dissenting), and In re M.S. , 898 N.E.2d 307 (Ind. App. 2008) in support of her argument.  

                                                                                                    

These cases are inapposite to the present appeal.  



                     In Thea G., we held that "[p]reserving [a drug addicted mother's] parental  

                                                                                               

rights, in order to ensure maintenance of the children's ties to her, would continue to  

                          

expose the children to [her] potentially dangerous behaviors and would deprive them of  

                                                                                                 

the chance to [achieve a measure of permanency]."  291 P.3d at 968.  As in Thea G., "in  

                   

some cases a child's best interests require preserving rather than severing ties to an unfit  

                                                                                                       

parent.  While such cases may exist, this is not one of them."  Id .  In Thea G., as in the  

                                                                                                                                  

present appeal, the children had "been in OCS's custody - in effect, in limbo - for . . .  

                                                                                                                            

years, waiting for [their mother] to act responsibly and step into her role as their parent."  

                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                  -22-                                                            6949
  


----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

                    The  superior  court  carefully  considered  the  evidence  and  found  that  



                                                                                

termination  was  in  Jake's  best  interests  because  Sherry  consistently  and  actively  



                                                                          

inhibited his progress in treatment.  The court  believed this harmful conduct would  



continue because Sherry was incapable of comprehending and meeting Jake's needs.  



                                                                 

As discussed previously, the present case had been ongoing for years at the time of the  



termination trial, and according to Jake's therapist, paramount to Jake's development was  



                           

his  need  to  feel  "safe"  in  the  consistent  presence  of  adults  who  acted  as  points  of  



                                                      

authority to orient him and control his chaotic moods and outbursts.  The superior court  



                               

was also entitled to rely on Dr. Cranor's assessment that Sherry was highly emotional,  



demanding, distrustful, and brash, and therefore was highly deficient in the psychological  



                                               

and emotional characteristics required to parent Jake.  Because Jake's need for calm  



                                                                                            

consistency in a structured environment was, and remains, paramount, we affirm the  



superior court's determination that termination was in Jake's best interests.  



          48(...continued)  



Id .   We reject Sherry's argument that we should adopt the reasoning of the Thea G.  

dissent in the present appeal.  See id. at 969-73.  



                    In In re M.S. , a mother voluntarily sought out the help of the Department  

                                                         

of Child Services and informed it that she was unable to control her special needs son or  

                            

protect her other children from him.  898 N.E.2d at 309.  The mother had no substance  

                                                                                        

abuse problems and remained heavily involved in her son's life, participating in services,  

                                                                           

attempting trial visits, weekend visits, and overnight visits to achieve reunification.  Id .  

                                                                                          

The  Indiana  Court  of  Appeals  found  that  "everyone  who  testified  agreed  that  [the]  

Mother  .  .  .  did  everything  that  was  asked  of  her,"  id.  at  311-12,  and  the  problem  

                                                                                                          

appeared to be "[the child's] behavior rather than [the] Mother's parenting skills."  Id .  

                                                                                                                   

at 312.  This is not an analogous case, as the superior court made clear findings on  

Sherry's deficiencies as a parent, her lack of timely remedial efforts, and her lack of  

                                                     

progress in the services she did engage in.  



                                                              -23-                                                         6949
  


----------------------- Page 24-----------------------

V.     CONCLUSION  



              For the reasons explained above, we AFFIRM the superior court in all  



respects.  



                                             -24-                                      6949
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC