Source: http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-7215.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:36:27+00:00

Document:
Judicial District, Palmer, Jonathan A. Woodman, Judge.
medications over the mother's objection.                                                     The court granted OCS's request.
whether to authorize medication of a child in OCS custody over the parent's objection.
OCS to consent to the recommended medications.
in a therapeutic foster home during the proceedings relevant to this appeal.
and tearful."   His therapist referred him to a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Brown.   "Dr.
1              138 P.3d 238 (Alaska 2006).
We use pseudonyms to protect the parties' privacy.
25 U.S.C. § 1903(4) (2012).
to see his mother, and that he gets frustrated when that [visitation] doesn't happen." Dr.
Dr. Brown tried to treat Alec's behavioral problems without medication.
[Alec] without the need of using an inpatient hospitalization if possible."
testified that the warning did not necessarily contraindicate the drug's use in Alec's case.
would be "anti-therapeutic" given Alec's symptoms and treatment goals.
alerts physicians "to make sure we inform people" of the risk.
OCS contacted Kiva to discuss Dr. Brown's recommendations for her son.
of Lexapro," especially given Alec's age.
engagement by mom in this child's case, and the escalation of the child's behaviors[,] . . .
OCS should be granted the authority to consent to medications for this child."
court also heard testimony from Dr. Brown's nurse, the OCS caseworker, and Kiva.
stabilizer (including Risperdal), as necessary, as determined and prescribed by [Dr.
6                 Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst.                                                          , 138 P.3d 238, 252 (Alaska 2006).
authorize only the use of Risperdal, not other atypical antipsychotics that are unnamed.
psychiatry and in light of Dr. Brown's testimony."
point by the appellate court without further trial proceedings."
the state and federal constitution[s]."
conviction that a mistake has been made."
a mixed question of fact and law.
8             204  P.3d  339,  346  (Alaska  2009).
(citing   Vezey  v.  Green,   171  P.3d   1125,   1129  (Alaska  2007)).
10            Id. at 178 (footnote omitted) (citing Vezey, 171 P.3d at 1128).
12            In  re  Jacob  S.,  384  P.3d  758,  763-64,  772  (Alaska  2016).
and the court could better weigh the available alternatives.
Medicate A Child Over Parental Objection.
is a "fundamental liberty and privacy right" deserving a very high level of protection.
freedom in an area that is not characterized as fundamental,"
13                    138  P.3d  238  (Alaska  2006).
14                   Huffman  v.  State,  204  P.3d  339,  345  (Alaska  2009).
individual's own medical treatment in Myers .
15	       Id.  at  345-46  (alterations  in  original)  (quoting  Myers,  138  P.3d  at  245-46).
17        See  Huffman,  204  P.3d  at  346.
18        138  P.3d  at  248.
22         Id.  at 248 (footnote omitted).
25         Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339, 346 (Alaska 2009).
different character because of Alec's status as a child in need of aid in OCS custody.
OCS points out that by statute it bears "the responsibility of physical care and control of"
medication used to treat a mental health disorder."
interests standard for deciding the issue.
(addressing a student's right to determine his own hairstyle); then citing                                                                                       Valley Hosp.
woman's right to make her own reproductive choices)).
33             689 P.2d 472, 477-78 (Alaska 1984).
action violated this statutory reservation of rights.
We also conclude that Kiva's right is substantially burdened in this case.
drugs is "truly intrusive" and "literally intended to alter the mind."
39          Id.  at 478 n.14.
Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 242 (Alaska 2006).
2.           OCS has a compelling interest in Alec's medical care.
the compelling interest it has articulated."
'lack[s]  legal  age  or  capacity'  "
42           Huffman v. State                   , 204 P.3d 339, 346 (Alaska 2009) (quoting                                                 Breese v.
Smith, 501 P.2d 159, 171 (Alaska 1972)).
969 (Alaska 1997)); see Myers, 138 P.3d at 249.
44           Myers, 138 P.3d at 249 (alteration in original) (first quoting Pub. Def.
Juris, BLACK 'S  LAW  DICTIONARY  (8th ed. 2004)).
inquiry - the best interests test.
3.         The administration of Lexapro is in Alec's best interests.
balancing test" for determining the issue.
burden of the State, which must carry its burden with clear and convincing evidence.
best interests . . . .").
52        Id.  at  252  (alteration  in  original)  (quoting  AS  47.30.837(d)(2)).
administration of Lexapro and Risperdal over Kiva's objection.
recommendation for Alec's treatment plan.
history, including attempts to treat him without medication.
possible side effects and benefits, . . . and risks of other conditions."
discussed Lexapro's use with mood stabilizers.
55          Myers,   138  P.3d  at  252.
57          Id. ;  see  also  In  re  Jacob  S.,  384  P.3d  758,  772  (Alaska  2016).
benefits  and  costs  of  administering  Lexapro.
4.            There were no available treatments less intrusive than Lexapro                                                                              .
types of tuberculosis tests that did "not require inserting any substance into the body,"
and we acknowledged that these could be "less restrictive alternatives."
60            See Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347.
61            Bigley v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 208 P.3d 168, 185 (Alaska 2009).
62            Huffman, 204 P.3d at 347.
allowing him to "come and go from API as he wishe[d]."
interests that justify the proposed state action."
evidence-based factual inquiry by the trial court."
69          Id.  at   179,   185-87.
it  is  also  a  fact-intensive  inquiry.").
74             See  id.  at   185.
restrictive means could advance' the compelling interest it has articulated."); Myers v.
any available less intrusive treatments.").
court did not err in finding that Lexapro was the least intrusive treatment available.
despite consistent intervention and the passage of a clinically reasonable period of time."
visitation between her and Alec was a feasible less restrictive alternative.  Although Dr.
challenges andcancellationssupportsaconclusionthat consistent visitation was unlikely.
feasibly satisfy OCS's compelling interest in providing Alec with medical care.
family therapy, an option OCS had considered but not yet employed.                                                                                                                                           But again, Dr.
B.                  The Conditional Authorization Of Risperdal Was Premature.
court related the details of Dr. Brown's treatment plan for Alec in its findings of fact.
whether  Alex  was  "experienc[ing]  reprieve  within  a  reasonable  period  of  time."
Alternatively, treatment with Lexapro would halt at this point "[i]f suicidality emerges."
76                 Myers,   138  P.3d  at  251-52.
testimony "that a patient typically remains on antidepressants for nine months to a year"
and "[i]t is not desirable for a patient to remain on antidepressants indefinitely."
available treatment should have awaited a later hearing.
Risperdal, a second hearing would be burdensome and impractical.
physicians, to protect and enforce" the fundamental rights at issue.
micromanage medical treatment plans that are proposed by qualified medical experts.
required that the determination be made.
very common," is more common with Risperdal than with other atypical antipsychotics.
parental rights by overriding her objection.
options have been exhausted and it's truly necessary."
should be judicially reviewed at least every 90 days.
the superior court is required to review the placement at least every 90 days.
determine whether the child's needs can be addressed in a less restrictive setting.
days, 90 days, or 180 days.
AS 47.30.730, .735, .755, .770.
day   commitments.                       But   any   "order   of   commitment   may   not   exceed  180   days."
Refusal To Consent Was Unreasonable Or Unjustified.
84	         AS 47.30.730, .735, .755, .770.
86          Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 249-52 (Alaska 2006).
the patient is incompetent to make those decisions.
88          Myers, 138 P.3d at 242-43.
mental patients in some situations.").
90           See Huffman v. State, 204 P.3d 339, 346-47 (Alaska 2009).
92          Ross v. Bauman, 353 P.3d 816, 828-29 (Alaska 2015).
interest in providing adequate and necessary medical care for children in its custody.
Kiva's rights are also protected by the                                                                                Myers  test's "least intrusive means"
alternatives are unreasonable or unjustified.
a denial of OCS's request to burden the parent's rights.
the superior court did not err by failing to make such a finding.
that are proposed by qualified medical experts."
court can approve it consistent with the Myers test."
consistent with the Myers test.
1                   Opinion  at  26 .

References: § 1903
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.