Opinion ID: 2582424
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The guardianship case

Text: On April 1, 2005, OCS filed a petition for guardianship, asking that the children's maternal grandmother be named as all three children's guardian. Although OCS could simply have requested the superior court overseeing the CINA case to appoint a guardian as part of the ongoing CINA proceedings, [2] it instead chose to frame its request as a separate guardianship case under AS 13.26.030-.085. Because the Public Defender Agency does not have statutory authority to represent parents in guardianship cases, [3] Terry's assistant public defender  who had represented him throughout the entirety of the CINA proceedings  was unable to represent Terry with regard to OCS's efforts to appoint the children's maternal grandmother as guardian. As the assistant public defender noted to the superior court at the time, [t]he Alaska Public Defender Agency cannot represent parties in a guardianship proceeding. Thereafter, Terry requested and received new court-appointed counsel. On May 18, 2005, attorney Leonard Anderson was appointed as counsel for Terry but withdrew from the case a month later based on an undisclosed conflict. On June 29 attorney Kenneth Kirk was appointed as counsel for Terry and has continued to represent him since. The guardianship case was initially assigned to Superior Court Judge Morgan Christen, but was soon after administratively reassigned to Judge Gleason  the same judge who was already overseeing the CINA case. [4] On July 7, 2005, shortly after Mr. Kirk was assigned as his counsel, Terry filed a motion to set aside the judicial assignment of Judge Gleason. In this motion, Terry noted that he would have moved to disqualify the judge earlier but had been awaiting counsel. He also noted that this motion should be count[ed] as [his] one discretionary preemption. In response, OCS filed an opposition to the motion to set aside the judicial assignment, and the GAL moved to consolidate the CINA and guardianship cases. On July 19, 2005, Superior Court Judge Sen K. Tan denied Terry's motion to set aside the judicial assignment. On August 3, 2005, Judge Gleason granted the GAL's motion and consolidated the CINA and guardianship cases. Terry did not oppose the entry of letters of guardianship for Jodi, which were signed on October 24, 2005. Thereafter, the superior court held a four-day guardianship proceeding with regard to the two other children. On February 9, 2006, the superior court issued a memorandum decision on the issue of guardianship. In this decision, the superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that Terry had sexually abused Jodi. The court then went on to find by clear and convincing evidence that placing the two younger children in Terry's home would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children. On the basis of this finding, the superior court concluded that the children's maternal grandmother would be appointed guardian as soon as letters of guardianship were filed. In response to the superior court's decision, Terry moved for clarification on whether the guardian would have the right to determine whether there should be contact between the children and their father. On May 8, 2006, the superior court entered new letters of guardianship for the two younger children which stated that [i]f the father of the child is not satisfied with the amount of visitation allowed, he may petition th[e] court for specific visitation rights. Soon thereafter, Terry petitioned the superior court for specific visitation rights. After further proceedings, the superior court issued an order in which it concluded that Terry was not entitled to visitation, either supervised or unsupervised, until he successfully participates in sex offender treatment. Terry now appeals.