Opinion ID: 2375328
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lucy's Parental Rights Are Terminated By The Trial Court: August 2009.

Text: OCS filed a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights on July 11, 2008. The trial on the termination petition was held in December 2008 and January 2009. The trial court ruled that the state has met its heavy burden of proof with respect to justification for termination of the mother's parental rights. The court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Jack and Carmen were and continue to be children in need of aid under: AS 47.10.011(8), because conduct by the parents [has] resulted in mental injury to the children and at least one of the parents have engaged in a pattern of behavior, including exposure to significant domestic violence, that has caused serious mental injury to the children and continued exposure would expose the children to substantial risk of serious mental injury; AS 47.10.011(9), because conduct by the parents subjected the children to neglect; AS 47.10.011(10), because the parent's ability to parent has been substantially impaired by the habitual use of intoxicants and the children were and are at substantial risk of harm should such behavior continue; and AS 47.10.011(11), because mother has a mental disorder, static encephalopathy, which is of a nature and duration that places her children at substantial risk of serious physical harm or mental injury. The court also found that [i]ncredible and active efforts were made by both the state and the tribe over the four years OCS had custody of these children to reunify the children with their mother. Because the court found that the state had not presented sufficient evidence that ICWA standards had been met with respect to Rick, the court did not rule that the termination of parental rights was in the children's best interests and denied the petition without prejudice. At the end of July 2009, after five months of working on a reunification plan, Rick consented to the adoption of Jack and Carmen by their foster family. The trial court explained in its August 2009 termination order [b]ecause there is no longer any impediment to a best interests finding and because the children were thriving in their foster home, it is in the children's best interests that [Lucy's] parental rights be terminated. Lucy does not challenge the finding that the children have been subjected to conduct in the past that led to their designation as children in need of aid. She instead appeals the trial court's findings that she has not remedied the conduct that placed the children at substantial risk of harm under AS 47.10.011, that there was clear and convincing evidence that OCS had provided active efforts toward reunification under ICWA, [4] that there was evidence showing beyond a reasonable doubt that returning the children to Lucy would cause them serious emotional or physical harm, and that it was in the best interests of the children for Lucy's parental rights to be terminated.
Before terminating parental rights under ICWA and the Child in Need of Aid (CINA) statutes and rules, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the child has been subjected to conduct or conditions described in AS 47.10.011; [5] that the parent has not remedied the conduct or conditions in the home that place the child at substantial risk of harm or that the parent has failed, within a reasonable time, to remedy the conduct or conditions in the home that place the child at substantial risk of physical or mental injury; [6] and in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful. [7] ICWA also requires that the court find by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent. . . is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. [8] Finally, it must be determined by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the best interests of the child. [9] In a CINA case, we review a superior court's findings of fact for clear error. [10] The trial court's finding that a parent has failed to remedy the conduct that placed the child at substantial risk is generally a finding of fact that is reviewed only for clear error. [11] Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made after a review of the entire record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below. [12] We review whether a trial court's findings satisfy the statutory requirements of the CINA and ICWA statutes de novo. [13] Whether OCS made active efforts as required by ICWA is a mixed question of law and fact. [14] We review de novo whether the trial court's finding that active efforts were made failed to comport with ICWA requirements. [15] Similarly, [w]hether substantial evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that a child is likely to be seriously harmed if returned to her parent is a mixed question of fact and law, while whether the expert testimony requirement of [ICWA] is satisfied is a pure question of law that we review de novo. [16] We review issues that were not raised at trial only for plain error on appeal. [17]