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. Dean S. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (5/11/2018) sp-7243

Dean S. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (5/11/2018) sp-7243

          Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  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@akcourts.us.  



                     THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ALASKA  



DEAN  S.,                                                         )  

                                                                  )    Supreme Court No. S-16840  

                                                                                                       

                              Appellant,                          )  

                                                                  )    Superior  Court  Nos.  3PA-15-00163/  

          v.                                                      )    00164/00165  CN  

                                                                  )  

                                     

STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT                                                                

                                                                  )    O P I N I O N  

                                          

OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES,                                      )  

                                                                                                        

                                             

OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES,                                    )    No. 7243 - May 11, 2018  

                                                                  )  

                              Appellee.                           )  

                                                                  )  



                                 

                                                                                                        

                    Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                     

                    Judicial District, Palmer, Gregory Heath, Judge.  



                                                                                                    

                    Appearances: Kevin Higgins, Law Office of Kevin Higgins,  

                                                                                                   

                    Anchorage, for Appellant.   Laura Fox, Assistant Attorney  

                                                                                                 

                    General,   Anchorage,   and   Jahna   Lindemuth,   Attorney  

                                                                                                  

                    General,  Juneau,  for  Appellee.                    Rachel  Levitt,  Assistant  

                                                                                               

                    Public       Advocate,          and      Chad       Holt,      Public       Advocate,  

                                                             

                    Anchorage, Guardian Ad Litem.  



                                                                                                     

                    Before:  Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger,  

                                         

                    and Carney, Justices.  



                                        

                    WINFREE, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                        

                    The biological father of three children validly consented to their adoption  



                                                                                                                                  

in the face of parental rights termination proceedings.  Five months later he sought to  


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

withdraw his consent.                               The superior court determined that withdrawal of the father's                                                               



consent to adoption would not be in the children's best interests and denied the father                                                                                             



permission to withdraw his consent.                                               The father appeals, arguing that the superior court                                                 



clearly erred in finding that withdrawal of his consent was not in his children's best                                                                                                  



interests. Because the superior court did not clearly err in this factual determination, we                                                                                                



affirm its decision.     



II.            FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS             



                                                                             1  

                              Dean S. and Emily S.                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                are the biological parents of three children, born in  



                                                 2  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

2003, 2004, and 2007.                                The Office of Children's Services (OCS) became involved with  



                                                                                                                                                                          

Dean and Emily's family in 2005 when the oldest child was a year old and the middle  



                                                                                                                                                                            

child  about  four  months  old;  the  youngest  was  not  yet  born.                                                                                           OCS  received  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

unsubstantiated reports that the children were not being supervised and that the parents  



                                                                                                                                                                                       

were abusing substances. OCS continued to investigate abuse and neglect reports, most  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

of  which  were  unsubstantiated,  over  the  next  seven  years.                                                                               OCS  ultimately  took  



                                                                                                                          3  

                                                                                                                              

emergency custody of the children in November 2012. 



                              Dean worked his case plan, and OCS later returned the children to his care.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Emily did not cooperate with OCS and had only intermittent contact with the children.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   



               1              Pseudonyms are used to protect the parties' privacy.                                               



               2              The children are not Indian children as defined by the Indian Child Welfare  

                                                                                                                                                                                

Act. See 25 U.S.C.  1903(4). The Act provides additional protections for parents in the  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

adoption context. See 25 U.S.C.  1913(c) ("In any voluntary proceeding for termination  

                                                                                                                                                                        

of parental rights to, or adoptive placement of, an Indian child, the consent of the parent  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

may be withdrawn for any reason at any time prior to the entry of a final decree of  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

termination or adoption, as the case may be, and the child shall be returned to the  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

parent.").  



               3              See AS 47.10.142(a) (providing that OCS may "take emergency custody  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

of a child" upon discovery of enumerated circumstances).  

                                                                                               



                                                                                             -2-                                                                                      7243
  


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

In August 2015 OCS received new reports that Dean was having suicidal thoughts,                                                                                                       



abusing   substances,   and   neglecting   the   children.     The   oldest   child,  then  age   11,  



reportedly was the primary caregiver for the two younger children.                                                                                              The children were                



voluntarily   moved   to   Dean's   brother's   home,   but   OCS   again   assumed   emergency  



custody after Dean threatened to remove them.                                                                    



                                OCS petitioned for emergency adjudication of the children as in need of                                                                                                 

aid.4  The superior court granted OCS temporary custody.5  OCS established an initial  



permanency goal of reunification.  The children were first placed with Dean's brother,  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



then moved to Dean's sister in May 2016.  

                                                                                                     



                                OCS petitioned to terminate Dean's and Emily's parental rights in August  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

2016.6              The superior court found that neither parent had made substantial progress  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



toward  remedying  the  conditions  placing  the  children  in  need  of  aid  and  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



appropriate permanency plan for the children was adoption.   Dean executed a valid  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                              7  in December, Emily did the same.  

consent to adoption in November 2016;                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                 



                4               See   AS   47.10.142(c)   ("If   [OCS]   determines   that   continued   custody   is  



necessary to protect the child, [OCS] shall notify the court of the emergency custody by                                                                                                               

filing, within 24 hours after custody was assumed, a petition alleging that the child is a                                                                                                                

child in need of aid.").               



                5               See AS 47.10.142(e) ("When the temporary custody hearing is held, the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

court shall determine whether probable cause exists for believing the child to be a child  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

in need of aid, as defined in AS 47.10.990.  If the court finds that probable cause exists,  

                                                                                                                                                                                              

it shall order the child committed to [OCS] for temporary placement . . . .").  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



                6               See AS 47.10.088(a) (providing parental rights may be terminated only if  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         

court finds by clear and convincing evidence child is in need of aid, parent has not  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

remedied conditions that place child at substantial risk of harm, and OCS has made  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

reasonable efforts to enable safe return of child to family home).  

                                                                                                                                        



                7               See AS 25.23.060 (listing valid consent requirements).   Dean does not  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                                             (continued...)  



                                                                                                   -3-                                                                                           7243
  


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

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         8  

                                                      Dean moved to withdraw his consent in May 2017.                                                                                                                                                                         The superior court                                       



held   an   evidentiary   hearing   in   August   to   determine   if withdrawal                                                                                                                                                                                                       would   be   in   the  



children's best interests. Dean testified on his own behalf and a caseworker testified for                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



OCS.   Emily did not contest the adoption.                                                                                                                                 



                                                      Dean testified that he wanted "full custody" of his children.                                                                                                                                                                                  He wanted to                                    



work together with his sister to "decide the route now that we have a clear vision of what                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



needs to be done to raise the kids in a . . . healthy environment," and he thought his                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



custody was preferable to adoption in case his sister died.                                                                                                                                                                                   Dean said he had attended                                                   



parenting   classes,   grown   closer   to   his   spiritual   advisers,   addressed  his  hoarding  



problems, found a life-skills coach, and identified private agencies that could provide                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



therapy services. Dean conceded living in protective housing with four people to a room,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



but he believed he could quickly work a "fair" case plan to achieve permanency for his                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



children.   Dean also said that he and his sister had been in regular contact but that OCS                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



had tried to "cut off" his contact with her.                                                                                                                              



                                                      The OCS caseworker testified that the children had bonded with Dean's                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 sister and were "comfortable, relaxed" and "thriving."                                                                                                                                                                      The caseworker said they were                                                                               



doing well in school, the middle child no longer had debilitating tantrums, and the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



youngest child had become a "mainstream kid" who no longer needed a "shadow"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                           7                          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                    

challenge his consent's validity.  



                           8  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                      See AS 25.23.070(b) ("A consent to adoption may be withdrawn before the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

entry of a decree of adoption, within 10 days after the consent is given, by delivering  

written notice to the person obtaining the consent, or after the 10-day period, if the court                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

finds, after notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded to petitioner,  the person  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 seeking  the  withdrawal,  and  the  agency  placing  the  child  for  adoption,  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

withdrawal is in the best interest of the person to be adopted and the court orders the  

withdrawal.").  



                                                                                                                                                                         -4-                                                                                                                                                             7243
  


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

assistant or "had great difficulty at school."                                                                    The caseworker also said that Dean's sister                                                       



knew where the children needed to be, got them to school, spent time with them "to build                                                                                                                            



self-esteem and individuality," was a "guiding parent"; the children were affectionate                                                                                                            



toward her, and they had built a strong family unit.                                                                                     The caseworker indicated that, if                                                   



Dean retained parental rights and diligently worked his case plan, it likely would take                                                                                                                               



him a year to achieve permanency.                                                            



                                   The superior court denied Dean's motion to withdraw his adoption consent                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                         9  and found that  

in September 2017. The court cited                                                          S.O. v. W.S.                   's best interests standard                                                                   



Dean's sister's adoption of the children was in their best interests. The court credited the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



caseworker's testimony that the children were thriving, comfortable, relaxed, doing well  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



in school, enjoying where they were living, and in a stable, happy home.  The court  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



found Dean had not shown that withdrawal of his adoption consent was in the children's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



best interests because he lacked the ability to consider their best interests over his own.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                   Dean appeals, challenging the superior court's best interests finding.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



III.              STANDARD OF REVIEW  

                                                                  

                                   We review the superior court's factual findings for clear error.10  "A factual  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                  9                See   643 P.2d 997, 1006 (Alaska 1982),                                                                     overruled on other grounds by                                               



Rosen v. State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy                                                                     , 689 P.2d 478, 481-83 (Alaska 1984).                                                                      We  

review this standard                                  infra  at pp. 7-8.                         



                  10               See In re Adoption of S.K.L.H., 204 P.3d 320, 324 (Alaska 2009) ("[W]e  

                                                                                                                                  

review the superior court's factual findings in adoption proceedings for clear error.").  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

We have not previously decided what standard of review applies to a best interests  

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

finding under AS 25.23.070(b).  See S.O., 643 P.2d at 1006 (reviewing only whether  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

superior court applied correct legal standard regarding parental preference).  And as we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

noted in In re Adoption of Hannah L., the superior court's best interests determination  

                                                                                                     

is reviewed for clear error in some contexts and abuse of discretion in others.  See 390  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

P.3d 1153, 1160 n.36 (Alaska 2017) (contrasting different best interests determinations).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

But the parties agree that whether "withdrawal is in the best interest of the person to be  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                               (continued...)  



                                                                                                             -5-                                                                                                    7243
  


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

finding is clearly erroneous 'when a review of the record leaves us with the definite                                              

impression that a mistake has been made.' "                              11                                                              

                                                                             Ordinarily, we "will not overturn a trial  



                                                                                                                                      

court's finding based on conflicting evidence, and . . . will not re-weigh evidence when  



                                                                                                                                         

the record provides clear support for the trial court's ruling; 'it is the function of the trial  



                                                                                                                             

court,  not  of  this  court,  to  judge  witnesses'  credibility  and  to  weigh  conflicting  



                    12  

                         

evidence.' " 



IV.        DISCUSSION  



                      Withdrawal   of   adoption   consent   is   governed   by   AS   25.23.070.  

                                                                                                                                                 



Subsection (b) of that statute provides:  

                                                  



                      A consent to adoption may be withdrawn before the entry of  

                                                                                                                      

                      a  decree  of  adoption,  within  10  days  after  the  consent  is  

                                                                                                                      

                      given, by delivering written notice to the person obtaining the  

                                                                                                                     

                      consent, or after the 10-day period, if the court finds, after  

                                                                                                                  

                      notice and opportunity to be heard is afforded to petitioner,  

                                                                                                         

                      the person seeking the withdrawal, and the agency placing  

                                                                                                             

                      the  child  for  adoption,  that  the  withdrawal  is  in  the  best  

                                                                                                                  

                      interest of the person to be adopted and the court orders the  

                                                                                               

                      withdrawal.  



           10         (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                       

adopted" is a factual question reviewed for clear error, and we have applied clear error  

                                                                                                                         

review to best interests findings in the adoption context before.  See id.; see also In re  

                                                                                                                                       

Adoption of T.M.K. , No. S-1839, 1987 WL 1361315, at *3 (Alaska Nov. 4, 1987) ("We  

                                                                                                                                                 

conclude that the court's conclusions are not clearly erroneous and therefore affirm.").  

                                                                                                                                

We  therefore  assume  without  deciding  that  the  superior  court's  best  interests  

                                                                                                                                        

determination here is a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. See Hannah L., 390 P.3d  

                                                                                                                              

at 1160 n.36 ("For purposes of this appeal we assume it is the former [clear error].").  



           11         See S.K.L.H., 204 P.3d at 324 n.11 (quoting In re Adoption of Missy M.,  

                                                                                                                                          

 133 P.3d 645, 648 (Alaska 2006)).  

                                              



           12         Id. at 325 (quoting Tessa M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office  

                                                                                                                                      

of Children's Servs., 182 P.3d 1110, 1114 (Alaska 2008)).  

                                                                                     



                                                                     -6-                                                              7243
  


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

Dean's consent and subsequent request to withdraw consent were greater than ten days                                                                                     



apart, so the superior court was required to hold a hearing and make a best interests                                                                            



                                                 13  

finding for the children.                             



                                                                                                                                                                      

                           Under AS 25.23.070's best interests standard, there is no biological parent  

                                                                                                                                                                 14  When  

                                                                                                                                                                       

preference, and thechild'sbest interests are viewed fromthe child's perspective. 



determining  a  child's  best  interests,  the  superior  court  should  not  make  "a  mere  

                                                                                                                                                                       

comparison of the social status and economic means of the competing sets of parents."15  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



The court instead must "careful[ly] weigh[] . . . myriad factors, such as the character and  

                                                                                                                                                                           



maturity of the parents, their commitment to the care of the child, the child's present  

                                                                                                                                                                   



bonds of affection, the family setting and stability, and so forth, which together form the  

                                                                                                                                                                             

foundation  for  a  stable  and  happy  home  for  the  child."16                                                                 Present  circumstances,  

                                                                                                                                                   



including the child's attachment to the current caregiver, are relevant in determining best  

                                                                                                                                                                           

interests.17  



                            If  the  superior  court  uses  this  legal  standard  and  considers  all  of  the  

                                                                                                                                                                           

evidence before it, our role on appeal is "quite limited."18  "Where the trial [court] has  



guided [its] decision by reference to the best interest of the child and fully considered all  

                                                                                                                                                                              



              13           See B.J.B.A. v. M.J.B.                         , 620 P.2d 652, 656 (Alaska 1980) (holding that                                                 



evidentiary hearing to determine best interests is required under AS 25.23.070(b)).                                                          



              14           S.O., 643 P.2d at 1005 ("We hold that when a natural parent consents to his  

                                                                                                                                                                             

or her child's adoption and later seeks to withdraw such consent, no parental preference  

                                                                                                                                                             

is to be applied in determining what is in the child's best interest.").  

                                                                                                                       



              15           Id.  at 1006 (quoting In re Anderson, 589 P.2d 957, 974 (Idaho 1978)  

                                                                                                                                                                      

(Bakes, J., dissenting), reh'g denied Feb. 16, 1979)).  

                                                                                              



              16           Id. (quoting Anderson , 589 P.2d at 974 (Bakes, J., dissenting)).  

                                                                                                                                                                



              17           Id. at 1006 n.13.  

                                                    



              18           Id. at 1006.  

                                        



                                                                                      -7-                                                                               7243
  


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

of   the   evidence   before   [it],   there   is   very   little   room   for   the   exercise   of   appellate  

discretion."19  



                           We have applied this standard meaningfully only once before, in In re  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                      20  In that case the biological mother gave her consent to adoption and  

Adoption of T.M.K.                                                                                                                                                     

                         

then sought to withdraw it.21                              The superior court found that withdrawal of the mother's  

                                                                                                                                                            



consent was not in the daughter's best interests because:  the mother inappropriately  

                                                                                                                                               



disciplined  the  daughter  and  abandoned  her  in  times  of  stress;  the  daughter's  

                                                                                                                                                       



psychological  welfare,  schoolwork,  and  behavior  had  improved  with  her  adoptive  

                                                                                                                                                            



parents; the daughter felt safer and preferred to live with her adoptive parents; and the  

                                                                                                                                                                        



mother's efforts to resolve her substance abuse and parenting problems did not outweigh  

                                                                                                                                                           

the risk of harm shown by her past behavior.22   We affirmed, reasoning that the superior  

                                                                                                                                                             



court  did  not  clearly  err  by  "carefully  examin[ing]"  the  mother's  past  history  and  

                                                                                                                                                                      



concluding that the evidence of the daughter's improvements outweighed the benefits  

                                                                                                                                                              

of her returning to the mother.23  

                                              



                           Applying S.O.'s standard to this case with T.M.K. as a useful analogy, the  

                                                                                                                                                                        



 superior court did not clearly err by finding that withdrawal of Dean's consent would not  

                                                                                                                                                                        



              19           Id.  (quoting  In re Adoption of Cox                                 , 327 So.2d 776, 778 (Fla. 1976)).                    



              20           No. S-1839, 1987 WL 1361315 (Alaska Nov. 4, 1987).                                                                In  S.O.  we said   



only:  "Here, our review of the record satisfies us that the Master reached her decision                      

by reference to J.D.S.'s best interests after fully considering the evidence before her."  

                                                                                                                                                                               

643 P.2d at 1006. Looking to                               T.M.K  as an unpublished decision is therefore appropriate                                  

under Appellate Rule 214(d)(1) as having "persuasive value in relation to an issue in the                                                                               

case . . . [when] there is no published opinion that would serve as well."  

                                                                                                                                     



              21           T.M.K., 1987 WL 1361315, at *1-2.  

                                                                                         



              22           Id. at *2-3.  

                                       



              23           Id.  



                                                                                    -8-                                                                            7243
  


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

                                                                                                                                

be in the children's best interests. Dean concedes that there was no reversible error if the  



                                                                                                                                

court's interpretation of the testimony was not erroneous.  He focuses his attack on the  



                                                                                                                              

court's finding that "[w]hen asked point blank why the children would be better off with  



                                                                                                                        

him than with his sister, [Dean] appears to lack the ability to consider the best interests  



                                                                                                                      

of his children."  Dean argues that the court clearly erred by interpreting his testimony  



                                                                                                  

as showing an inability to consider his children's best interests.  



                                                                                                                                

                    The superior court's interpretation of Dean's testimony may be harsh, but  



                                                                                                                               

it is not clearly erroneous.  When asked why the children would be better off with him  



                                                                                                                        

than with his sister, Dean responded:  "That's not totally my plan.  I think, my opinion,  



                                                                                                                                

it would be better for me to have that full custody back and let my sister and I decide the  



                                                                                                                                     

route now that we have a clear vision of what needs to be done to raise the kids in a . . .  



                                                                                                                                 

healthy environment."  The superior court bolded and italicized "better for me" in its  



decision to support its conclusion that Dean wanted custody because it was in his best  



                                                        

interests, rather than the children's.  



                                                                                                                                      

                    Therecordsupports thesuperior court's interpretation ofDean'stestimony.  



                                                                                                                                

Aside from the plain language of Dean's statement, Dean also testified that he did not  



                                                                                                                  

believe his case plan was fair, that OCS separates families, that he would "be the only  



                                                                                                                              

one there" for the children after they turned 18, and that his housing contained four  



                                                                                                                           

adults per room. Given these statements, and in the context of being asked why it would  



                                                                                                                            

be better for the children to live with him rather than his sister, Dean's testimony could  



                                                                                                                           

be interpreted either as wanting parental rights because he believes his influence would  



                                                                                                                             

be in his children's best interests, or as Dean wanting to influence his children's lives  



                                                                                                                                

even knowing their living with his sister as their adoptive parent would be better for  



                                                                                                                                

them.       Because  we  "ordinarily  will  not  overturn  a  trial  court's  finding  based  on  



                                                                                                                              

conflicting evidence, and . . . will not re-weigh evidence when the record provides clear  



                                                                -9-                                                         7243
  


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

                                                                        24  

support for the trial court's ruling,"                                      the record does not support a "definite impression"                              

that the court's latter interpretation was a mistake.                                                    25  



                            The  record  as  a  whole  also  supports  the  superior  court's  finding  that  

                                                                                                                                                                             



withdrawal of Dean's consent was not in the children's best interests.   This case is  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



analogous to T.M.K., where the record showed:  (1) the child's psychological welfare,  

                                                                                   



schoolwork, and behavior improved with her adoptive parents; (2) the child felt safer and  

                                                                                                                                                                              



preferred to live with the adoptive parents; and (3) the mother's efforts to resolve her  

                                                                                                                                                                               



substance abuse and parenting problems did not outweigh the risk of harm shown by her  

                                                                                                                                                                               

past behavior.26                     Here, the record shows:   (1) the children's psychological welfare,  

                                                                                                                                                                    



schoolwork, and behavior have improved since living with Dean's sister; (2) the children  

                                                                                                                                                                     



are bonded with Dean's sister and have built a good relationship with her; and (3) Dean's  

                                                                                                                                                                       



claims of having addressed his personal and parenting problems are undermined by his  

                                                                                                                                                                                



previous failure to maintain such behavior after having his children returned to him. We  

                                                                                                                                                                               



therefore are not left with a "definite impression" that the superior court's best interests  

                                                                                                                                                                    

finding was a mistake.27  

                              



V.            CONCLUSION  



                            We  AFFIRM  the  superior  court's  decision  to  deny  Dean's  motion  to  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



withdraw his consent to his children's adoption.  

                                                                                  



              24            See In re Adoption of S.K.L.H.                                 , 204 P.3d 320, 325 (Alaska 2009) (quoting                               



Tessa M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs.                                                                                   , 182 P.3d   

 1110, 1114 (Alaska 2008)).                



              25            See id. at 324 n.11 (quoting In re Adoption of Missy M., 133 P.3d 645, 648  

                                                                                                                                                                              

(Alaska 2006)).  

                                   



              26            See  1987 WL 1361315, at *2-3.  

                                                                                     



              27            See S.K.L.H., 204 P.3d at 324 n.11 (quoting Missy M., 133 P.3d at 648).  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                      -10-                                                                                 7243
  

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