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. Edna L. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, John L. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (12/24/2020) sp-7496

Edna L. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, John L. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (12/24/2020) sp-7496

          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@akcourts.us.  



                      THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                   



EDNA  L.,                                                     )  

                                                              )    Supreme Court Nos. S-17485/17505  

                                                                                                    

                               Appellant,                     )    (Consolidated)  

                                                              )  

          v.                                                  )    Superior Court Nos. 3PA-18-00059/  

                                                                                                   

                                                              )    3PA-18-00089 CN  

                                                                                           

STATE OF ALASKA,  

                                                              )  

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &  

                                                  

                                                                                      

                                                              )    O P I N I O N  

SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF  

                                                              )  

CHILDREN'S SERVICES,                                                                                        

                                                              )   No. 7496 - December 24, 2020  

                                                              )  

                               Appellee.                      )  

                                                              )  

                                                              )  

JOHN L.,  

                                                              )  

                                                              )  

                               Appellant,                     )  

                                                              )  

          v.                                                  )  

                                                              )  

STATE OF ALASKA,  

                                                              )  

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &  

                                                              )  

SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF  

                                                              )  

CHILDREN'S SERVICES,  

                                                              )  

                                                              )  

                               Appellee.                      )  

_______________________________  )  



                                                                                                         

                                  rom the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                    Appeal f 

                                                                                      

                     Judicial District, Palmer, Vanessa White, Judge.  



                                                                                                    

                    Appearances:            Michael  Horowitz,  Law  Office  of  Michael  

                                                                                                                  

                     Horowitz,  Kingsley,  Michigan,   for  Appellant   Edna  L.  


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

                         J.    Adam    Bartlett,    Anchorage,    for    Appellant    John    L.   

                         Kimberly               D.       Rodgers,              Assistant             Attorney             General,  

                         Anchorage,   and   Kevin   G.   Clarkson,   Attorney   General,  

                         Juneau, for Appellee.     



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

                         and Carney, Justices.     



                         MAASSEN, Justice.
   

                         STOWERS, Justice, with whom CARNEY, Justice, joins, concurring.
                                                



I.           INTRODUCTION  



                         A mother and father appeal the termination of their parental rights after  

                                                                                                                                                           



proceedings in the Palmer Families with Infants and Toddlers Court (FIT Court).  They  

                                                                                                                                                          



argue that their rights were violated when the FIT Court's "rigid, non-fact driven,"  

                                                                                                                                                    



 12-month timeline governed the progression of the Child in Need of Aid (CINA) cases  

                                                                                                                                                          



of their two children.  We conclude that it was error to adhere to the FIT Court's preset  

                                                                                                                                                         



timeline rather than making an individualized assessment of whether the parents had a  

                                                                                                                                                                  



reasonable time to remedy based on the facts of their children's cases, as required by  

                                                                                                                                                               



statute.  We further conclude that the parents did not knowingly and voluntarily waive  

                                                                                                                                                         



that statutory requirement.  

                           



II.          FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                          

                         Edna and John L.1  are married and have a daughter, Ann; Edna also had a  

                                                                                                                                                                  

son, Chris, from a previous marriage to Charles F.2 

                                                                                                  In early March 2018 the Office of  



Children's Services (OCS) took custody of six-year-old Chris after Edna and John were  

                                                                                                                                                           



             1           We use pseudonyms to protect the parties' privacy.                                                 



             2           Charles agreed to relinquish his parental rights to Chris if Edna's rights  

                                                                                                                                                         

were terminated so  that Chris could  be adopted  by  the  foster  parents.                                                                   He did  not  

                                                                                                                                                             

participate in this appeal.  

                                   



                                                                               -2-                                                                        7496
  


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

seen using drugs in Chris's presence.                                                                                         In late April OCS took custody of Ann shortly                                                                                           



after her birth.                                 Both children tested positive for drug exposure, and Chris was behind in                                                                                                                                                              



school and in need of significant dental work.                                                                                                            The children were placed with a foster                                                                          



family.   



                                            Edna and John had long struggled with substance abuse, and both received                                                                                                                                             



behavioral  health   assessments that recommended intensive outpatient or                                                                                                                                                                                residential  



treatment.  Early in their children's CINA cases both parents failed to follow through                                                                                                                                                                             



with their OCS case plans and continued using drugs. They missed scheduled urinalysis                                                                                                                                                                        



appointments, court hearings, and family team meetings.                                                                                                                                      



                      A.                    The FIT Court Overview                                 



                                            The FIT Court is a therapeutic court in Palmer.                                                                                                            Based on similar courts in                                                      



other jurisdictions, its stated "primary goals are to achieve permanency within twelve                                                                                                                                                                                 



months and to reunify young children with their families of origin." Families in pending                                                                                                                                                                           



CINA cases involving children under three years old are eligible to participate.                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                            The   FIT   Court   team   consists   of   the   FIT   Court   judge   and   project  

                                                                                                          3  and representatives of various State entities: OCS, the  

coordinator, "ICWA specialist,"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



Department of Law, the Public Defender Agency, and the Office of Public Advocacy.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



When an eligible family expresses interest in the court, the FIT Court team votes on  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



whether to accept the case; the judge makes the final decision.  Cases accepted into the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



FIT Court are assigned to the FIT Court judge.  

                                                                                                                                                             



                                            Families are allowed to leave FIT Court until there is an adjudication that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



the child is in need of aid; at that point "the participants will no longer have the ability  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



to opt-out of the therapeutic court."  To ensure they understand this and other unique  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                      3  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                            The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) specialist is not further identified  

                                               

in our record.  



                                                                                                                                          -3-                                                                                                                                              7496  


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

                                                                                                                              

aspects of FIT Court, participants are given an opt-in form to sign, acknowledging that  



                                                                                                                      

they  "understand  and  agree  to  the  program  requirements."                                      The  form  requires  



                                                                                                                             

participants to initial a set of statements acknowledging that they "understand the goal  



                                                                                                                          

of FIT Court is for the minor(s) to reach permanency in 12 months.  Permanency means  



                                                                                                                              

case closure through reunification, adoption, or guardianship"; they "understand FIT  



                                                                                                                              

Court has an alternative hearing schedule, which includes monthly court hearings and  



                                                                                                                           

a permanency hearing at 6 months"; and they "understand that [their] case will not return  



                                                                                                              

to regular Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceedings.  It is not possible to opt-out post  



                                                                                                 

adjudication.  This is different from other therapeutic courts."  



                                                                                                                         

                    Havingcommitted to this expedited process,FITCourt participants receive  



                                                                                                                   

increased attention from caseworkers.  An assigned team works to support the parents  



                                                                                                                             

in getting the help and services they need.  FIT Court participants work through four  



                                                                                                                                 

phases:  (1) "Evaluation of Needs," which takes "approximately three months" and in  



                                                                                                                        

which  "the  participant's  goal  is  to  engage  in  services"  such  as  parenting  classes,  



                                                                                                                              

substance abuse assessments, urinalyses, visitation, and therapy; (2) "Putting Plans into  



                                                                                                                       

Action," "an ongoing phase where the participant is learning and problem solving,  



                                                                                                                               

building on family strengths, and fully engaged in services"; (3) "Stability," in which the  



                                                                                                                                 

participants are finishing classes, are "fully engaged in services," and, if reunification is  



                                                                                                                           

still an option, are "ready  for  reunification"; and (4) "Graduation," at which  point  



                                                                                                                       

"permanency  has  been  achieved  and  there  is  no  further  need  for  the  Court's  



                       

intervention."  



          B.        Proceedings  



                                                                   

                    1.        Ann's probable cause hearing  



                                                                                                                                

                    The superior court held an emergency probable cause hearing for Ann on  



                                                               -4-                                                         7496
  


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

                                                                      4  

May 3, 2018.                                                                The court asked Edna and John to consider participating in FIT Court,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



 explaining the court's "two-fold" mission:                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                        First to serve families with infants and toddlers with                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                     much more significant wraparound services for the entire                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                      family. So, in your circumstance, given the allegations in the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                     petition,   that   might   include   substance   abuse   treatment,   it  

                                                                     might   include   mental   health   treatment.    It   almost   always  

                                                                      includes what we call child-parent psychotherapy . . . .                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                                                                                                         [The FIT Court] is a court where we're also trying to                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                     make sure that these babies achieve permanency within a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                     year's time. . . . [O]ne of the primary goals of this program is                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                     to promote permanency within one year's time.                                                                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                                                        And                              secondarily,                                                              the                       reason                                       for                       all                     of                    these  

                                                                     wraparound services is to promote reunification of the child                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                     with the parents whenever that can be done safely.                                                                                                                                                                                                                           So, the   

                                                                      focus is on getting the case resolved within a year.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    And  

                                                                     whenever possible, having that . . . resolution be reunification                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                      of the child with the family.                                                                             



The   probable   cause   hearing   was  continued,   and   a   week   later   both   Edna   and   John  



indicated their interest in FIT Court.                                                                                                                                                           The court informed them that they would be the                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 seventh family to participate and explained that they would have to work hard on their                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 case plans, be honest, and ask for help when they needed it.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   In return, the court told                                                                                  



them, the FIT Court team would work hard for them and "lift [them] up":                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                     As long as you do your part, I promise you, the team will do                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                     their part.                                            And they will be honest with you at all times.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                      This   is   a   tough   program,   too,   because   there's   no   time   to  

                                                                     waste.   If you're admitted into the FIT Court, you have to hit                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                     the ground running in terms of working the items on your                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                      case plan, because we're going to get [Ann] to permanency                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                   4                                 See  AS47.10.142(a),(d), (e)(governingemergency custody and temporary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



placement   hearings   at   which   court   determines   "whether   probable   cause   exists   for  

believing the child to be a child in need of aid").                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                                                                          -5-                                                                                                                                                                                                           7496
  


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

                                                         with you or without [you] within 12 months of the date she                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                         was removed.                                                 So, there is no time to waste.                                                                                                    



                                                         2.	                          The Fit Court opt-in in Ann's case                                                                                                      



                                                         The   court  had an official FIT Court opt-in hearing for Ann's case on                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



May   22,   2018.    The   court   walked   through   all   the   items   on   the   "FIT   Court   opt-in  



checklist" before making a finding that both of Ann's parents, Edna and John, were                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



"entering into the FIT Court freely, voluntarily, and intelligently, both with the advice                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



of   competent  counsel."     The   court   explained   that   "some   determinations   about  



permanency" would be made "in about six months' time":  "At the six-month mark, if                                                                                       



you're not in a home visit or close to a home visit, then the case may convert from one                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



where we're focusing on reunification to where we're focusing on adoption for [Ann]."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



The court reiterated that "our goal is permanency in 12 months," emphasizing the FIT   



Court's higher-than-traditional success rate:                                                                                                                                                 "and by success I mean reunification and                                                                                                                          



no repeat maltreatment."                                                                                   



                                                         Edna's attorney informed the court, "[Edna] knows what she's getting into,                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



and we had a long meeting with the parents last week and discussed some serious                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



expectations of this family.                                                                                          And I think that they are committed to that."                                                                                                                                                      



                                                         3.	                         Ann's adjudication as a child in need of aid and the FIT Court                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                      opt-in in Chris's case                                                      



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              5  

                                                         Ann's adjudication as a child in need of aid occurred on July 13, 2018.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



Both Edna and John stipulated through their attorneys - and the court subsequently  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



found - that Ann was a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011(10) because of parental  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 substance abuse.6  Edna's attorney informed the court that Edna intended "to stipulate  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                             5                           See  AS 47.10.080(a)-(f) (describing process and effects of adjudication).                                                                                                                                                                                 



                             6  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                         See AS 47.10.011(10) (providing that court may find child to be child in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        (continued...)  



                                                                                                                                                                                   -6-	                                                                                                                                                                     7496
  


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

to adjudication and disposition without admission under subsection ten."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The attorney   



explained, "She understands this is her fish-or-cut-bait moment that she is intending to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 stay in the FIT Court and work the program."                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                 The court turned to John, whose counsel was not present at the hearing, and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



asked whether he had also "had a chance to talk to [his attorney] about the fish-or-cut-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



bait part of . . . adjudication." John responded, "Yes."                                                                                                                                                                                                                 The court continued:                                 



                                                                 I'm going to spend just a minute making sure that we have a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                 good record and you understand. . . .                                                                                                                                   [I]f you weren't in FIT                                                                                  

                                                                  Court,                                  you   would   have                                                                                  the                     right                            to                a              hearing                                       [on  

                                                                  adjudication].       At    that    hearing,    [OCS]    would    present  

                                                                  evidence,   and   I   would   make   a   determination   after  the  

                                                                  evidence   was  presented   and   you   had   a   chance   to   cross- 

                                                                  examine the witnesses as to whether or not it was more likely                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                 than   not  that [Ann] was a child in need of aid under the                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                  substance abuse section of the Child in Need of Aid statute.                                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                                  . . .    



                                                                                                   [T]he next step if I make that finding is, well, what are                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                 wegoing                                      to doabout that? And thewhat-are-we-going-to-do-                                                                         

                                                                  about-it part is called disposition.                                                                                                                                 And in a traditional case,                                                                           

                                                                 I would more likely than not enter an order giving [OCS]                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                  custody of [Ann] for a period of up to two years.                                                                                                                                                                                                            In FIT   

                                                                  Court, I give a disposition order that gives [OCS] custody for                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                  a period of up to one year.                                                                                                        



                                                                                                  That doesn't mean [OCS] has to have custody for a                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                 whole year, but it means that we don't have to address that                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                 issue again for a year as you're working your case plan and                                                                                                

                                                                 working toward reunification. As [Edna's counsel] said, this                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                 is also the fish-and-cut-bait moment for FIT Court, because                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                                 6                                (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

need of aid on ground that "the parent['s] . . . ability to parent has been substantially  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

impaired by the addictive or habitual use of an intoxicant, and the addictive or habitual  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

use of the intoxicant has resulted in a substantial risk of harm to the child").  



                                                                                                                                                                                                             -7-                                                                                                                                                                                               7496
  


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

                                                                                                          

                     if  you  agree  to  adjudication  and  disposition  today,  then  

                                                                   

                    you're in FIT Court until the case is closed.  You can't say,  

                                                                                                 

                     "I've changed my mind, I want to go back to a traditional  

                                                                                                           

                     court  hearing[.]".  .  .  [Y]ou're  with  me  doing  it  on  this  

                                                                                                           

                     shortened timeline with the enhanced services until the case  

                                                          

                     is closed.  Do you both understand?  



                                                                  

John and Edna both said they understood.  



                                                                                                                             

                     The court then proceeded to discuss opt-in for the case of Edna's son Chris,  



                                                                                                                        

who had earlier been adjudicated a child in need of aid. Although FIT Court is primarily  



                                                                                                                                 

for younger children, the team allowed Chris's case to proceed in FIT Court so that the  



                                                                                                                              

CINA cases for Edna's two children could follow the same timeline and access the same  



                  

resources.  



                                                                                                                               

                    When  explaining  the  FIT  Court  to  Chris's  father  Charles,  who  was  



                                                                                                                                  

participating by phone, the court said, "The benefit to [Chris] is that [he] will get to  



                                                                                                                             

permanency sooner than he would.  Whether permanency is reunification with mom,  



                                                                                                                                  

reunification with you, or some other permanent arrangement, he's going to get to  



                                                                                                                             

permanency sooner in this court."  At a subsequent hearing, the court explained:  



                                                                                                                  

                     So, I'll enter - [Charles,] this is all legal mumbo jumbo.  

                                                                                                       

                    What it means is . . . that you guys are in the program, you're  

                                                                                                          

                     stuck with me until we're done. And today I'm entering what  

                                                                                                        

                    we call disposition orders, and that just means that the Office  

                                                                                                            

                     of Children's Services will be granted custody of [Chris and  

                              

                    Ann] for a period not to exceed one year. . . .  The one year  

                                                                                                              

                     is just sort of a benchmark, and we're going to continue to  

                                                                                                         

                    work through the case.   The goal is to try and have these  

                                                                                                                 

                    kids' cases completely resolved within that year.  But it's . . .  

                                                                                                            

                     a  legal  formality  that  I  have  to  enter  .  .  .  that  order  for  

                                                    

                     disposition.  Is that clear?  



                                          

Charles answered, "Yes."  



                                                                                                                                 

                    When obtaining Edna's consent to hearing Chris's case in FIT Court, the  



                                                                                                                          

court  did  not  go  through  all  the  questions  on  the  opt-in  form  or  confirm  Edna's  



                                                                -8-                                                          7496
  


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

understanding of them, reasoning, "[B]ecause [Edna's] already done an opt-in hearing                                                                                                                     



with me for [Ann's case], I'm very comfortable just having that opt-in form filled." The                                                                                                                          



court entered disposition orders for both children committing them to OCS's custody for                                                                                                                              



a period not to exceed one year.                                                   



                                  4.               Permanency hearing   



                                  ANovember 2,                           2018 status                  hearing was also a permanency hearing for both                                                             



                       7  

children.                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                           The court re-emphasized the FIT Court's goal of reunification: "We're going  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

to keep doing exactly what we've been doing and that is trying to achieve reunification  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

within this year or so of time.  Do you understand?"  The court commended Edna for  



                                                                                                                                                                                                              

being sober, undergoing detox, and getting into a residential treatment program.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                  Notwithstanding  this  recognized  progress,  OCS  served  petitions  for  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

termination of parental rights on the parties at the hearing. OCS's attorney explained that  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

although Edna had "made some brief progress, . . . at this time the goal is adoption.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                              

We'll still continue to work reunification but the primary goal is adoption."  The court  



                                                                                                                    

explained these developments to the parents:  



                                                                                                                                                                          

                                  Okay.   So, what that means is that there's still two goals,  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                  right?               Adoption  and  reunification.                                                  But  because  of  the  

                                                                                                                                 

                                  amount of time that has passed since [Ann and Chris] came  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                  into foster care, [OCS] at this point needs to be addressing the  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                  possibility that these children will be freed for adoption.  



                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                   It does not mean that reunification is not possible. . . .  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                  [W]hat it does mean is if reunification is going to be a viable  

                                                                                                                                                                  

                                  possibility, everybody needs to be clicking on all cylinders  

                                                                                                                                                                             

                                  from here on out.  Everybody on the same page about that?  



                 7                "The purpose of the permanency hearing is to establish a permanency plan                                                                                                       



for each child committed to state custody . . . and to ensure that findings with respect to                                                                                                                            

the plan are made as required by state and federal laws."                                                                                        CINA Rule 17.2(a).               



                                                                                                          -9-                                                                                                  7496
  


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

                                                                                                                   

                    Thecourt determined that bothadoption and reunification wereappropriate  



                                                                                                                                

goals:   OCS "continued to make appropriate efforts to promote reunification and to  



                                                                                                                                 

finalize the permanency plan," but, while "recognizing the progress that each parent is  



                                                                                                                              

making," "it would be contrary to both children's best interests to return them to the care  



                                                                                                                                  

or custody of any of their parents."  The court stated that the next hearing would be a  



                                                                                                                             

pretrial conference. At a December 6 hearing the court decided that the termination trial,  



                                                                                                                   

originally slated for February, would be held in March to accommodate scheduling  



                

conflicts.  



                                                                                         

                    5.        Motion to continue the termination trial  



                                                                                                                             

                    Edna moved to continue the termination trial, citing the progress that both  



                                                                                                                                

she and John were making in their substance abuse treatment programs. At a hearing on  



                                                                                                                     

February 28, 2019, OCS opposed the continuance, arguing that accepting "a wait-and- 



                                                                                                                          

see"  approach  and  hoping  that  "more  time  will  provide  more  information"  would  



                                                                                                                    

"eviscerate the FIT Court and the expedited permanency timeline that parents knowingly  



                                                                                                                                 

and voluntarily chose to engage in, in exchange for the enhanced services and efforts to  



                                                                                                                            

get the children into permanency."  OCS's counsel pointed out that the case had been  



                                                                                                                             

pending in FIT Court for "nine months at least, . . . maybe ten if you include the time  



                                                                                                                  

before [opt-in,] and that is within the norm in terms of . . . the timing of termination  



                  

petitions."  



                                                                                                                             

                    Edna's  attorney protested  that the 12-months-to-permanency  goal was  



                                                                                                 

being treated as a deadline divorced from the facts of the case:  



                                                                                                                 

                    I do believe that good cause exists [to continue the trial].  

                                                                                                         

                    And I think that if everybody in this room were honest with  

                                                                                                         

                    themselves, they would recognize and admit that this case  

                                                                                                    

                    would not be heading to a termination trial with a mother  

                                                                                                           

                    who's four or five months sober but for the timeline - the  

                                                                                      

                    artificially imposed timeline of FIT Court.  



                                                              -10-                                                         7496
  


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

                                                                                                                                 

The court replied that the deadline "is not . . . artificial, it is not arbitrary," but rather "is  



                                                                                                                               

based on social science about what kids need."  The court expressed its frustration that  



                                                                                                                      

this was the third or fourth FIT Court case in which parents' attorneys had requested  



                                                                                                                                      

continuances based on the argument that FIT Court imposed "an arbitrary deadline."  



                                                                                                                                

The court explained that termination was not "a fait accompli" simply because the  



                                                                                                                                

petition had been filed and that trial could still result in a finding that the grounds for  



                                                        

termination had not been satisfied.  



                                                                                                                     

                    Edna's lawyer argued, however, that the ramifications of the 12-month  



                                                                                                                               

timeline were "not clearly . . . explained to the parent at the outset."  She contended that  



                                                                                                                    

none of the FIT Court milestones in Edna's case - "a termination petition at the five- 



                                                                                                                             

month mark" and "proceed[ing] to trial at the 10-month mark . . . in the hopes that we'll  



                                                                                                                              

achieve an adoption by the 12-month mark" - were "based on the facts of [Edna's] case  



                                                                                                                                  

whatsoever." She reiterated that if Edna "were in regular court, she would be entitled to  



                     

more time."  



                                                                                                                                

                    The court agreed:  "She would - whether she was entitled to it or not, she  



                                                                                                                               

would get more time 99 percent of the time. . . .  But she opted to do this instead."  The  



                                                                                                                            

court observed that other parents who would be granted a continuance under these  



                                                                                                                           

circumstances "didn't opt into this court recognizing that the goal is permanency within  



                                                                                                                              

12 months."   The court noted that Chris had been in OCS custody for about a year  



                                                                                                                                  

already, and "when we get to trial, [Ann] will be at 10 and a half months," which is  



                                                                                                                                   

"within the timeframes for the FIT Court."  The court continued:  "[Edna] opted into a  



                                                                                                                        

therapeutic court with a 12-month-to-permanency timeline. She didn't opt into wellness  



                                                                                                                                      

court. . . .   She opted into this model.   And these kids have a right to permanency."  



                                                                                                                                    

Denying the motion to continue trial, the court repeated its "tremendous frustration . . .  



                                                                                                                              

with this argument that [Edna] didn't sign on for what she signed on for, for these kids  



                                                               -11-                                                         7496
  


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

                                                                                                                                

and to achieve permanency. . . . [I]t's disingenuous to argue that she didn't know that she  



                                              

would be going to trial about now."  



                                                     

                    6.         Termination trial  



                                                                                                                            

                    A  termination  trial  was  held  over  nine  days  in  March  2019.                                    John,  



                                                                                                                    

participating  telephonically  from  prison,  testified  that  he  was  taking  a  residential  



                                                                                                                            

substance abuse treatment program, an anger management class, and a parenting class;  



                                                                                                                                   

was being treated for mental illness; and was scheduled to be out on parole "in about a  



                                                                                                                                

year." He testified that he was "disgusted" with his addiction and what it had done to his  



                                                                                                                                 

family and was committed to improving himself for his family's sake going forward. As  



                                                                                                                       

for Edna, at the time of trial she was 145 days sober and making progress in inpatient  



                                                                                                                            

treatment.  Her primary therapist at the treatment facility testified that Edna had made  



                                 

"enormous" change.  



                                                                                                           

                    At  the  close  of  trial  the  court  entered  both  oral  and  written  findings  



                                                                                                                    

terminating Edna's and John's parental rights. The court found by clear and convincing  



                                                                                                               

evidence that Edna had subjected Ann to the conditions described in AS 47.10.011(10)  



                                                                                                                      

(parental substance abuse), and that John had subjected Ann to the conditions described  



                                                                          

in subsections (2) (incarcerated parent's failure to adequately arrange for child's care)  



                                                                                                                      

and (10).  The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Edna had subjected  



                                                                                                              

Chris to the conditions described in subsections (9) (neglect) and (10).  The court also  



                                                                                                                     

found by clear and convincing evidence that Edna and John failed "within a reasonable  



                                                                                                                               

time" to remedy the conduct that rendered Chris and Ann children in need of aid.  The  



                                                                                                                  

court explained that "if you were going to grade [Edna] on a curve for her participation  



                                                                                                                  

in family contact, she'd get at least a B.  She really tried most of the time to engage in  



                                                                                                                                    

family contact with both of the children," but her efforts were ultimately insufficient:  



                                                                                                  

                     [Edna] has yet to accomplish multiple foundational treatment  

                                                                                               

                    objectives necessary to build a foundation for a meaningful  



                                                               -12-                                                         7496
  


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

                               recovery much less build a health[y] relationship with [Ann                                                                   

                               or Chris]. [John] has not remedied the conduct or conditions                                                      

                               that    brought    [Ann]    into   care    and    upon    release    from  

                               incarceration would need to demonstrate his ability to be a                                                                            

                               sober and appropriate caregiver along [with completing] case                                                                    

                               plan activities that cannot be completed in custody.                                                                    



                               The   court   also   found   that   OCS   had   made   reasonable   efforts   towards  



reunification and that termination was in the children's best interests.                                                                                           Edna and John            



appeal.  



III.	           STANDARDS OF REVIEW                           

                                                                                                                                                             8  When reviewing  

                               We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.                                                                                          



a trial court's decision that a litigant has waived a right, we review the court's fact- 

                                                                                                                                                                                            



finding for clear error, but we review de novo its decision that those facts satisfy the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                

relevant legal standard.9  

                                                         



IV.	            DISCUSSION  



               A.	             Unless The FIT Court's Timeline Has The Flexibility To Account For  

                                                                                                                                                                                              

                               Individual  Circumstances,  It  Violates  The  Statutory  Requirement  

                                                                                                                                                                      

                               That Parents Have A Reasonable Time To Remedy.  

                                                                                                                                         



                               Alaska Statute 47.10.088(a)(2)(B) provides that a court may not terminate  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



                8	             L.D.G., Inc. v. Brown                             , 211 P.3d 1110, 1118 (Alaska 2009).                                    



                9  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

                               See Hutton v. State, 350 P.3d 793, 796-98 (Alaska 2015) (applying "mixed  

                                                                                                                                                                    

question of law and fact standard of review" to whether defendant made constitutionally  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

valid waiver of right to jury trial, with superior court's underlying factual findings  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

reviewed for clear error and "the ultimate conclusion drawn from those facts - whether  

                                                                                                                                                                                             

a defendant's waiver  is constitutionally  sufficient" - reviewed  de novo); see also  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

Hudson v. Citibank (S.D.) NA, 387 P.3d 42, 45-46 (Alaska 2016) (observing that "it is  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

clear that the majority of jurisdictions treat arbitration waiver as a mixed question of law  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

and fact"); Forster v. State, 236 P.3d 1157, 1161-62 (Alaska App. 2010) ("We must  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

uphold  the  trial  court's  factual  findings  unless  they  are  clearly  erroneous,  but  we  

                                                                                                                                                                              

independently determine whether [a Miranda] waiver was knowing and intelligent,  

                                                                                                                                                               

viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the judge's ruling.").  



                                                                                               -13-	                                                                                       7496
  


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

parental rights and responsibilities absent clear and convincing evidence that the parent                                                                                                                                                                                       



"has failed, within a reasonable time, to remedy the conduct or conditions in the home                                                                                                                                                                                            



that place the child in substantial risk so that returning the child to the parent would place                                                                                                                                                                                     



the   child   at   substantial   risk   of   physical   or  mental   injury."     A   court   making   this  



determination  



                                             may consider any fact relating to the best interests of the                                                                                                                                    

                                             child, including   



                                             (1) the likelihood of returning the child to the parent within                                                       

                                             a reasonable time based on the child's age and 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 created by the                                                                                                                                   

                                             parent.[10]  



"Any  fact  relating  to  the  child's  best  interests  is  relevant  to  the  determination."11  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



Although the focus is on the children's needs, the parents' efforts - and any progress  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



they have made to ensure that "the harmful conduct will [not] continue" - are among  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



the statutory factors relevant to determining whether and how the children's needs will  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

be met.12  

                                



                                             In Christina J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



 Children's Services, a termination trial took place 13 months after the child was removed  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                       10                    AS 47.10.088(b).   



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

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Servs., 368 P.3d 607, 612 (Alaska 2016).                                                                              



                       12                    AS 47.10.088(b)(2), (4); see, e.g., Trevor M., 368 P.3d at 612 (discussing  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

father's "minimal" "efforts to remedy his conduct" in relation to child's best interests).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                            -14-                                                                                                                                    7496
  


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

from the mother's custody.13  Alaska Statute 47.10.088(d) mandates that OCS petition                                                          



for termination when "the child has been in foster care for at least 15 of the most recent                                                                                                        



22 months," and the mother argued that the statute "soundly suggests that 22 months is                                                                                                                       



a reasonable time period                                         during which both the 'efforts' required and the decision                                                                  

                                                                                                                                  14   We rejected the argument that  

regarding the initiation of a termination can be made."                                                                                                                                                 

the statute set "a minimum time OCS must wait before filing."15                                                                                                     Instead, OCS was  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



required to determine "when to file a petition based exclusively on the best interests of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

the child."16   We clarified that "reasonable time" is defined by statute "not as a specific  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



number of months or by reference to parents' needs, but as 'a period of time that serves  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



the best interests of the child, taking in[to] account the affected child's age, emotional  

                                                                                                         

and developmental needs, and ability to form and maintain lasting attachments.' "17   We  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



highlighted the factual context of the superior court's decision that 13 months was a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



reasonable time to remedy, including not just the child's need for permanency but also  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



the mother's "failure to make any real progress toward" completing treatment, which  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



"indicated that there was a very low likelihood of returning [the child] to her care within  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



a  reasonable  time  based  on  his  age  and  needs  - a  permitted  consideration  under  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

AS 47.10.088(b)."18                                  Emphasizing again that "reasonable time" was centered on the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



child's needs, we concluded:   "We do not suggest that 13 months is an objectively  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



                13              254 P.3d 1095, 1106 (Alaska 2011).                                       



                14  

                                                                                           

                                Id. (quoting appellant's brief).  



                15              Id.  



                16              Id. at 1106-07.  

                                              



                17              Id.  at 1107 (emphasis added) (quoting AS 47.10.990(28)).                                              



                18              Id.  



                                                                                                   -15-                                                                                              7496
  


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

 'reasonable time' for parents to remedy their conduct; as reflected in our past CINA                                                                                                



decisions,  this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis and the amount of                                                                                                          



                                                                                            19  

time considered 'reasonable' will vary.                                                  "       



                                                                                                                                                                          

                              In this case, the absence of a case-by-case determination of a reasonable  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

time to remedy clearly worked to the parents' disadvantage.   When denying Edna's  



                                                                                                                                                                                        

motion to continue trial, the superior court acknowledged that she would have had more  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

time to work on remedying her conduct had she not been in FIT Court.  The court's  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

findings following trial made clear that its termination decision was based on Edna's  



                                                                                                                                                                                         

failure to remedy within the 12-month timeline:  "[Y]ou cannot waive the right to have  



                                                                                                                                                                                        

a longer period of time to engage in your recovery and then argue that the lack of more  



                                                                                                                                                                                       

time to engage in your recovery is a violation of your rights to due process or equal  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

protection."                    The  court  acknowledged  that  a  few  more  months  may  have  made  a  



                                                                                                                                                                            

difference  for  Edna,  observing  that  if  she  had  started  her  residential  treatment  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

immediately after her first substance abuse assessment in June 2018, rather than waiting  



                                                                         

until the end of October, "there would have been the potential to begin a family home  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

visit as soon as December or January."  But the court affirmed its view that the case was  



                                                                                                                                                                                        

governed by  the 12-months-to-permanency timeline regardless of what might have  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

happened without it: "Unfortunately, she wasn't able to [remedy her conduct] in a timely  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

fashion even though she recognized that the timelines in FIT Court are there to promote  



                                                                                                                                            

permanency for the child in a relatively brief period of time."  



                                                                                                                                                                                              

                              When implementing court-created rules in the CINA context, we must be  



                                                                                                                                                                                               

careful not to infringe on the legislative balancing of policy and process.  In Jennifer L.  



               19             Id.  at 1108 (emphasis added);                                     see also Trevor M. v. State, Dep't of Health                                       



& Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs.                                                  , 368 P.3d 607, 612 (Alaska 2016) (reiterating                                

Christina J.               's holding that the reasonable time determination must be made on a case-by-                                                                        

case basis).   



                                                                                             -16-                                                                                       7496
  


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

v.   State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services                                                                                          , we   



addressed a provision of the CINA rules allowing the superior court to delegate to a                                                                                              



master the task of holding a temporary custody hearing and determining whether a child                                                                                   

                                                                                20    The rule incidentally added a layer of judicial  

should be immediately returned home.                                                                                                                                 



review and ensuing delay that we held was contrary to the "especially expeditious  

                                                                                                                                                            

process" contemplated by the CINA statutes.21                                                      Recognizing "that procedural rules can  

                                                                                                                                                                             



affect substantive rights," we noted also that "[c]hildren's welfare and the parent-child  

                                                                                                                                                           



relationship are particularly infused with concerns of public policy" and thus fell within  

                                                                                                                                                                       

the legislature's authority to create substantive law.22                                                              We cautioned that the courts  

                                                                                                                                                                       

should "be especially attentive to the effects of procedural rulemaking" in CINA cases.23  

                                                                                                                                                                     



                            The CINA statutes and our case law make clear that a reasonable time to  

                                                                                                                      



remedy, "made on a case-by-case basis," is critical to the protection of the parents'  

                                                                                                                                                                   

fundamental interest in the custody and care of their children.24                                                                       To the extent the 12- 

                                                                                                                                                                             



months-to-permanency timeline is interpreted as lacking the flexibility to account for  

                                                                                                                                                                              



individual circumstances, it contravenes the statutory command of AS 47.10.088(b).  It  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



was error for the court to hold that the FIT Court timeline was determinative of whether  

                                                                                                                                                                    



the parents had a reasonable time to remedy.  

                                                                                                



              20            357 P.3d 110 (Alaska 2015).                                   



              21            Id. at 116.  

                                        



              22            Id. at 117.  

                                        



              23            Id.  



              24            Id.  



                                                                                      -17-                                                                                7496
  


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

                 B.	             TheParentsDidNotKnowingly                                                          AndVoluntarilyWaiveThe Statutory                                         

                                 Requirement                             Of           A         Timeline                     Tailored                    To          Their                Individual  

                                 Circumstances.  



                                 Parties to CINA proceedings may waive certain rights, even those with                                                                                                    



                                                                         25  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

constitutional underpinnings.                                                     Any such waiver, however, "must be knowing and  



                            26  

voluntary."                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                  The superior court determined that parents who opt into FIT Court "waive  



                                                                                                                                                                                                          

the right to have a longer period of time to engage in [their] recovery."  Edna and John  



                                                                                                                                                                                          

argue,  however,  that  they  never  intended  to  give  up  the  right  to  a  fact-based  



                                                                                                                                                                          

determination of whether they had had a reasonable time to remedy.  



                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                 The superior court determined that Edna and John opted into FIT Court  



                                                                                                                                                                                                              

voluntarily and that the opt-in process was sufficient to ensure that they understood the  



                                                                                                                                                                                                         

consequences ofthe12-monthcommitment. At thehearing on Ann's adjudication, when  



                                                                                                                                                                                                            

the parents also stipulated to disposition, the court addressed both parents directly.  The  



                                                                                                                                                                                                       

court remindedthemthatby agreeing "to adjudication and disposition today, [they would  



                 25              Norman S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's                                                                                   



Servs., 459 P.3d 464, 466 (Alaska 2020) ("By consenting to certain procedures or by                                                                                                                            

failing   to   object   to   others,   a   party   may   waive   those   rights   which   are   arguably  

encompassed within due process guarantees." (quoting                                                                                    In re C.L.T.                  , 597 P.2d 518, 522                   

(Alaska 1979)));                          Matthew H. v. State, Dep't of Health &Soc. Servs., Office of Children's                                                                           

Servs., 397 P.3d 279, 283-84 (Alaska 2017) (discussing parent's right to waive counsel                                                                                                             

pursuant to Alaska CINA Rule 12(c));  Lucy J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs.,  

OfficeofChildren's                               Servs.,244P.3d 1099, 1118-19                                                (Alaska2010) (concluding that                                               issue  

of expert qualification in ICWA termination proceeding was waived by failure to object                                                                                                                 

at trial).            



                 26	             Schacht v. Kunimune, 440 P.3d 149, 157 (Alaska 2019) (quoting Deptula  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

v. Simpson, 164 P.3d 640, 644 (Alaska 2007)) (holding that waiver of statutory rights  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

must be knowing and voluntary); Brandner v. Providence Health & Servs.-Wash., 394  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

P.3d 581, 588 (Alaska 2017) ("We previously have held that a waiver of constitutional  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

rights must be knowing and voluntary, and even in civil cases 'courts must indulge every  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

reasonable presumption against their waiver.' " (quoting Lynden Transp. v. State, 532  

                                                                                                                                                                  

P.2d 700, 717 (Alaska 1975))).  

                                                                               



                                                                                                      -18-	                                                                                              7496
  


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

be] in FIT Court until the case [was] closed," and they could not later "say I've changed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



my mind, [and] I want to go back to a traditional court hearing."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             The court asked the                                                                                       



parents whether they understood; both responded, "Yes, ma'am," and the court accepted                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



their stipulations for adjudication and disposition.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            The court found that both Edna and                                                                                                                                                                   



John "entered into this stipulation freely, voluntarily, and intelligently . . . with the advice                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 of competent counsel."                                                                                                                        



                                                                                 Eight months later, when Edna's attorney argued for a continuance of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



termination trial on the basis of Edna's progress in recovery, the court agreed with her                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



point that other parents in her situation would receive more time to remedy "99 percent                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 of the time"; the court observed, however, that those other parents "didn't opt into this                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 court recognizing that the goal is permanency within 12 months."   When Edna argued   



that she had not understood the rigidity of the deadline, the court called her argument                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 "just disingenuous."                                                                                                        



                                                                                 The superior court's oral findings at the close of trial reiterated that Edna                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



had opted into FIT Court voluntarily, understanding the rules.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       The court noted that                                                                                          



Edna's attorney "went through every single line item of that waiver form, that opt-in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 form with her.                                                                            She understood every single one of them."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           In its subsequent written                                                                                       



 order the court repeated that "[Edna] made the decision to opt-in knowing what the rules                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 and expectations were as her attorney reviewed the opt-in form with her."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                                                                 Edna argues, however, that she did not fully comprehend what she was                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                        27   In her trial testimony she denied that she understood the FIT Court rule  

 agreeing to.                                                                                                                                              



to be "a hard and fast 12-month-you-would-be-terminated rule."   Our review of the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



record confirms that the parents were given, at best, mixed messages as to whether  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                         27                                      John does not explicitly argue a lack of adequate notice, but his argument                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 implies that neither parent intended, by opting into FIT Court, to give up "their right to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

have a reasonable amount of time to remedy their conduct."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -19-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                7496
  


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

  12-months-to-permanency was an aspirational goal or an inflexible deadline.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    In its   



 explanations of FIT Court the court repeatedly emphasized the parents' need to work fast                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



because of the expedited timeline, warning, "[W]e're going to get [Ann] to permanency                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



with you or without [you] within 12 months of the date she was removed."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          At the same                          



time, however, the court consistently characterized 12-months-to-permanency as a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 goal :   



"[O]ne of the primary goals of this program is to promote permanency within one year's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



time."   "[O]ur goal is permanency in 12 months. . . .                                                                                                                                                                                                           [T]he primary goal of the program                                                                                                                   



is permanency for these kids in 12 months."                                                                                                                                                                                            At the opt-in hearing for Chris's case, the                                                                                                                                                                



court explained, "The one year is just sort of a benchmark, and we're going to continue                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



to work through the case.                                                                                                                    The goal is to try and have these kids' cases completely                                                                                                                                                                                                 



resolved within that year."                                                                                                                   



                                                                      The opt-in forms signed by the parents, and gone over with them orally at                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



the opt-in hearings, used the same terminology:                                                                                                                                                                                                           "I understand the goal of FIT Court is                                                                                                                                                         



 for the minor(s) to reach permanency in 12 months."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The program manual is even                                                                                                            



broader in its characterization of the timeline:                                                                                                                                               



                                                                      The   goal   [of   FIT   Court]   is   to   successfully   complete   the  

                                                                     program between six and twelve months.                                                                                                                                                                                       Each participant   

                                                                      and case is different, and healing the relationship between                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                     participants and their child(ren) is an ongoing process which                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                      cannot be confined to any specific time frame.                                                                                                                                                                                                        The goal of                                          

                                                                      the Palmer FIT Court is to reach permanency within twelve   

                                                                                                                [28]  

                                                                      months.                                                 



                                   28                                 There is no indication in the record that the parents read the FIT Court                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



policy and procedures manual.                                                                                                                                      The manual states, however, that it "provides the team                                                                                                                                                                                                                

with detailed information about the practices and expectations of the Palmer FIT Court"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 and "guides the Palmer FIT Court Team as well as others involved with the court."   It  

 further   provides   that   "[t]he   participant's  attorney   is   responsible   for   explaining   the  

program requirements to the participant."                                                                                                                                                                                      We assume that the language used in the                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              (continued...)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -20-                                                                                                                                                                                                               7496
  


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

Edna's  lawyer   relied   on   the   word   "goal"   when   arguing   for   a   continuance   of   the  



termination trial: "[T]he fact that we . . . call it a goal means it's aspirational. It does not                                                                         



mean you will be bound by a 12-month timeline." The lawyer's understanding of "goal"                                                                               



                                                                                           29  

is consistent with the word's ordinary usage.                                                    



                           A second troubling aspect of the 12-months-to-permanency goal is how it  

                                                                                                                                                                             



wasdefined: emphasizingreunification tothevirtualexclusionof the seriousalternative,  

                                                                                                                                                          



the expedited termination of parental rights.  We recognize that therapeutic courts are  

                                                                                                                                                                         



intended to provide settings in which participants are coached, encouraged, and praised  

                                                                                                                                                                 



for their progress.  We do not intend to minimize the importance of an atmosphere of  

                                                                                                                                                                           



optimism and support.   At the same time, however, when parents are giving up an  

                                                                                                                                                                          



important right it is critical that  they understand the consequences, particularly the  

                                                                                                                                                                         



likelihood of an adverse outcome.  For parents most likely to benefit from the kind of  

                                                                                                                                                                           



services FIT Court advertises - parents like Edna and John with long-term substance  

                                                                                                         



abuse problems, for example - FIT Court may well mean a fast track to termination,  

                                                                                                                                                       



because what the parents can accomplish in less than a year will not be enough to offset  

                                                                                                                                                                    

a history of relapse and recovery.30                                        We are not persuaded that Edna and John were  

                                                                                                                                                                     



              28           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                    

manual is intended to shape how attorneys explain the program to their clients.  



              29           See Goal          , T  HE  RANDOM  HOUSE  COLLEGE  DICTIONARY  (rev. ed. 1988) ("the                                                       



result or achievement toward which effort is directed; aim; end");                                                                 Goal, T         HE  AMERICAN  

HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (5th ed. 2020) ("The object toward                                                                                    

                                                                                                          

which an endeavor is directed; an end").                                            



              30           See, e.g., Christopher C. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of  

                                                                                                                                                                            

Children's Servs., 303 P.3d 465, 475-76 (Alaska 2013) (affirming finding that mother  

                                                                                                                                                        

had failed to remedy in reasonable time despite "her more than eight months of sobriety  

                                                                                                                                                               

(including her four months in residential treatment)" and other positive changes in her  

                                                                                                                                                                         

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

                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                                    (continued...)  



                                                                                    -21-                                                                             7496
  


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

adequatelyinformed, before                                     opting into FIT Court, that alikelyconsequencewas theloss                                                                   



of their parental rights in less time than they would have outside of FIT Court.                                                                                   



                              We note that the superior court never used the word "termination" when                                                                                   



describing the FIT Court program to the parents, and the word does not appear in any of                                                                                                        



the   program's   written   materials.    The   FIT   Court   brochure   says   that   the   program's  



"primary goals are to achieve permanency within twelve months and to reunify young                                                                                 

                                                                                        31     The written description of FIT Court's four  

children with their families of origin."                                                                                                                                                 



phases states, for Stage 3, that "[i]f you have not completed enough of your case plan to  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



begin to talk about reunification, the court team will shift focus to an alternative plan for  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



the permanency of your child(ren)," but it does not say what that alternative plan might  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



be.  The only resolution described in the phases is "graduation" at Stage 4, when the  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



participant demonstrates her "plan to be self-sufficien[t] and to be able to meet the needs  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



of [her] family."  The policy and procedures manual, at the end of the "Court Meetings  

                                                                                                                                                                              



and Hearings" section, describes only "the reunification ceremony" that "recognizes the  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



parents' commitment to family preservation and to providing a safe, nurturing home for  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



their children."  The opt-in form, which the court read through with the parents and on  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



               30             (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                            

74 P.3d 896, 902-03 (Alaska 2003) (affirming finding that mother had not remedied her  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

conduct within reasonable time despite one year's sobriety before trial, as sobriety was  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

"a relatively new phenomenon in her life" after she had "struggled with substance abuse  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

and relapsed after treatment a number of times").  In this case, even if Edna - while  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

pregnant with Ann - had become sober the day OCS took custody of Chris, she would  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

only have been sober for 12 months at trial.  Given her long history of substance abuse  

                                                                                                                                                                          

and the still-relatively-high risk of relapse, the superior court may still have determined  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

that she had not remedied the harmful conduct within a reasonable time.   The court  

                                                                                                                                                                               

recognized that the parents would struggle and have some setbacks while working  

                                       

toward sobriety.  



               31             ALASKA  COURT  SYSTEM,P                                     ALMER  FAMILIES WITH                              INFANTS AND                    TODDLERS  



COURT (Pub 123 (2/18)), https://public.courts.alaska.gov/web/forms/docs/pub-123.pdf.       

                  



                                                                                             -22-                                                                                       7496
  


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

                                                                                                                                

which  it  relied  for  its  finding  of  waiver,  does  list  the  three  possible  routes  to  



                                                                                                                             

"permanency"  as  "reunification,  adoption,  or  guardianship,"  but  the  court's  oral  



                                                                                                                         

explanations  repeatedly  emphasized  that  a  successful  permanency  meant  family  



                      

reunification.  



                                                                                                                  

                    This focus carried through the case, as the court praised and encouraged  



                                                                                                                         

Edna without mentioning the possibility that her efforts would be insufficient to prevent  



                                                                                                                     

an expedited termination.   By November, when OCS filed the petitions to terminate  



                                                                                                                    

parental rights, Edna had successfully completed detoxification and was in residential  



                                                                                                                            

treatment.  The court told her that these steps marked "a tremendous step in the right  



                                                                                                                               

direction":  "[W]hen I read that in your report, I just put the paper down and stopped for  



                                                                                                                              

a minute and I was so excited . . . that I couldn't keep reading."  The court told her,  



                                                                                                                        

"We're going to keep doing exactly what we've been doing and that is trying to achieve  



                                                                                                                             

reunification within this year or so of time."  The prospect that the case would end soon  



                                                                                                                      

in termination of parental rights instead was not mentioned even as the lawyers discussed  



                                                                                                                 

on the record how to best accomplish service of the termination petitions.  



                                                                                                                            

                    We are unable to conclude from this record that Edna and John were  



                                                                                                                             

adequately advised of FIT Court's serious downside for parents:  termination of their  



                                                                                                                 

parental rights more quickly than it would happen outside of FIT Court.  



                                                                                                                               

                    We note one other ambiguity in how FIT Court was presented: whether the  



                                                                                                                             

12-month period was calculated from when the children were taken into custody or from  



                                                                                                                        

when the parents opted into FIT Court. The answer to this question determines whether  



                                                                                                 

the parents would have 12 months to work with the FIT Court team on remedying the  



                                                                                                                            

conduct that caused their children to be in need of aid or whether termination could occur  



months short of that, as in fact it did.  The court started the 12-months-to-permanency  



                                                                                                                        

timeline with the date the children were removed from their parents' custody, holding  



                                                                                                                              

the termination trial 12 months after Chris was taken into custody (in March 2018) and  



                                                              -23-                                                         7496
  


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

                                                                                                                        

nearly 11 months after Ann was taken into custody (in April 2018).  But Edna testified  



                                                                             

at trial that she believed the 12 months ran "from the time [she] opted in.  So . . . [her]  



                                                                                                                                

understanding when [she] signed [the opt-in form] was it'd be from May to May for  



                                                                                                                             

[Ann], July to July for [Chris]." In other words, at the time of the March 2019 trial, Edna  



                                                                                                                             

believed she should have had two more months to work on Ann's case and four more  



                               

months to work on Chris's.  



                                                                                                                               

                    Edna's perception is understandable considering the information she was  



                                                                                                                        

given.  The court repeatedly used the phrase "within a year" or "within twelve months"  



                                                                                                                                

when describing the permanency goal, but we have found only one instance when the  



                                                                                                                        

court mentioned on the record the starting point of that one-year period. At the probable  



                                                                                                                               

cause status hearing for Ann, two months after removal and while the parents were first  



                                                                                                                                    

considering FIT Court, the court explained, "If you're admitted into the FIT Court, . . .  



                                                                                                                                  

we're going to get [Ann] to permanency with you or without [you] within 12 months of  



                                                                                                                              

the date she was removed.  So, there is no time to waste."  (Emphasis added.)  At later  



                                                                                                                                

hearings, including the hearing when Edna and John agreed to opt into FIT Court for  



                                                                                                                                 

Ann's case, the court emphasized the 12-month timeline without ever pinpointing its  



                                                                                                                              

starting date.  The opt-in forms acknowledged the parents' understanding that "the goal  



                                                                                                                     

of FIT Court is for the minor(s) to reach permanency in 12 months" without indicating  



                                                                                                                                 

when that period began; the parents signed the forms on May 22, 2018.  There was no  



                                                                                                                           

clarification of this issue later in the hearing when Ann officially opted into FIT Court;  



                                                                                                                             

the court explained the one-year disposition order given in FIT Court as meaning "that  



                                                                                                                        

we don't have to address [the issue of OCS custody] again for a year as you're working  



                                                                                                                              

your  case  plan  and  working  toward  reunification."                               The  FIT  Court  policies  and  



                                                                                                                            

procedures manual is also vague on this issue, stating that "[t]he goal [of the FIT Court  



                                                                                                                       

program] is to successfully complete the program between six and twelve months"  



                                                     

without specifying the start date.  



                                                               -24-                                                         7496
  


----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

                                                              Uncertainty as to thestartdatewasevident                                                                                                                                                        in Edna's February                                                                       2019 motion  



to continue the termination trial.                                                                                                                      The court repeatedly pointed to the time the children                                                                                                                     



were removed from their parents' care as significant, but Edna's attorney countered that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



it was the parents' opt-in to FIT Court, not removal, that marked the beginning of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



 12-month period:                                                                  "[W]e as a FIT Court have identified this 12-month timeline . . . from                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



when we get . . . our hands on these parents, because we understand that the services that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



we provide are . . . special."                                                                                                          Other than the court's one mention of the removal date                                                                                                                                                                                               



while the parents were first considering FIT Court, the attorney's understanding of the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



timeline is consistent with the explanation given to her client.                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                                                              In                  sum,                           in                 light                          of                 the                     ambiguities                                                    and                        potential                                         for                    serious  



misunderstanding in the way the 12-months-to-permanency goal was presented to Edna                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



and John, we conclude that the record does not support Edna's and John's knowing and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



voluntary waiver of a CINA process that adequately took into account their individual                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



circumstances.   



V.                             CONCLUSION  



                                                              We REVERSE and VACATE the order terminating Edna's and John's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



parental rights and REMAND for further proceedings.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                                                                                                                                                                                                -25-                                                                                                                                                                                       7496
  


----------------------- Page 26-----------------------

 STOWERS, Justice, with whom CARNEY, Justice, joins, concurring.                                                                                                                             



                                           I concur in the court's opinion holding that the superior court erred in                                                                                                                                                            



"adher[ing] to the FIT Court's preset timeline rather than making an individualized                                                                                                                                                    



assessment of whether the parents had a reasonable time to remedy based on the facts of                                                                                                                                                                                         



their children's cases, as required by statute."                                                                                                        I note, however, that Edna argued on                                                                                 



appeal that the superior court violated her right to due process by basing termination of                                                                                                                                                                                       



her parental rights on the rigid FIT Court timeline rather than the specific facts of her                                                                                                                                                                                   



children's cases.                                        It is appropriate that the supreme court decides Edna's and John's                                                                                                                                     



appeals on statutory grounds and does not reach the parents' constitutional claims. This                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                             1  But this does not mean that  

resolution respects the principle                                                                    of constitutional avoidance.                                                                                                                                         



the superior court's error did not also violate the parents' due process rights; the superior  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



court's rigid and arbitrary adherence to a fixed timeline without reference to the facts of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

the case may well have crossed the constitutional threshold.2  A future case may bring  

                                                            



this question to this court for resolution.  

                                                                                               



                                           I write separately to highlight a larger problem: the existence and structure  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



of the FIT Court itself.  I think it is ludicrous to believe that parents with longstanding  

                                                                                                                                                                                    



substance abuse problems or other intractable problems (including mental health issues)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



could, within the FIT Court's 12-month timeline possibly (1) receive substance abuse  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



treatment, mental health treatment, parenting classes, and other necessary therapies;  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                      1                    See Alaska Fish & Wildlife Conservation Fund v. State                                                                                                                            , 347 P.3d 97, 102                            



(Alaska 2015);                                    Alaska Trademark Shellfish, LLC v. State                                                                                                   , 91 P.3d 953, 957 (Alaska                                     

2004).    



                      2                    A particular concern is the FIT court's apparent elevation of the goal of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

permanency for children to the exclusion of parents' fundamental right to the "care,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

custody, and control of their children." In re Tammy J., 270 P.3d 805, 813 (Alaska 2012)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

(quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000)).  

                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                     -26-                                                                                                                             7496
  


----------------------- Page 27-----------------------

(2)  successfully completethesetreatments,programs, and                                                                                                                            therapies;and(3)demonstrate,                           



over some reasonable period of time, that they have internalized what they have learned                                                                                                                                                                   



and demonstrate their ability to safely parent their children. I think the entire premise of                                                                                                                                                                               



the FIT Court vis-á-vis these kinds of serious parental issues is invalid and for many                                                                                                                                                                         



parents illusory particularly given the FIT Court's failure to ensure that the promised                                                                                                                                                            

wraparound services are provided.3  So in addition to reversing the termination orders  



in this case, I would (1) immediately suspend all further FIT Court proceedings, (2)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



return parents enrolled in the FIT Court to regular CINA proceedings, and (3) if there is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



interest in continuing a FIT Court-type of therapeutic court, require that an assessment  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



of how such a court might be structured be presented to the supreme court for its review  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



and approval.  

                                              



                     3                    "Wraparound   services"   is   a   term   of   art   and   requires  holistic   services  



delivered by                            asupportive, integrated teamofproviders.                                                                                            See Wraparound Basics or What                                                        

is  Wraparound:     An   Introduction,   NATIONAL    WRAPAROUND    INITIATIVE    (2020),  

                                                                                                                                 

https://nwi.pdx.edu/wraparound-basics/.  



                                                                                                                                  -27-                                                                                                                            7496
  

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