Opinion ID: 2637527
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Foster Care Placement

Text: Barring certain exceptions, AS 47.14.100 prohibits the state from placing a child in foster care if a relative requests placement of the child in the relative's home. [16] Erica contends that when the state took emergency custody of Kevin and Amy in October 1999, it should have placed them with relatives rather than in foster care. This error, she argues, entitles her to a reversal of the superior court's termination order. The state and the guardian ad litem correctly respond that the October 1999 temporary custody order is not properly before this court. This appeal is from the superior court's ultimate decision to terminate Erica's parental rights. In reaching its termination decision, the superior court was not required to revisit its earlier placement decision and its termination order superseded all earlier placement orders. [17] As the state correctly points out, Erica could have challenged those placement decisions by requesting superior court review. [18] Erica could then have petitioned this court for review of the superior court's ruling. [19] Because Erica failed to seek timely review, the superior court's termination order now renders earlier issues of placement moot. [20]