Opinion ID: 2827470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remy Left During The Termination Trial.

Text: Remy attended most of the trial. On the third day of trial, a Wednesday, Remy’s attorney asked the court if Remy could be absent from trial on the following day, Thursday, to attend an integrated mental health and substance abuse assessment. Remy’s counsel clarified that Remy was not requesting a continuance, and the trial court responded that Remy did not have to be present because the case was civil, not criminal. At the end of Wednesday’s trial day, counsel and the court discussed the order of testimony for the next day. Counsel for OCS told the court that its last witness was not available until 11:30 a.m. Thursday. The trial court asked if the parents were “willing to indicate whether they believe they have any non-party witnesses they’re going to be calling.” Remy’s counsel said, “I don’t have any,” and Vera’s counsel said, “just my client.” In an effort to avoid wasting the morning hours before the last OCS witness 5 Judge Cutler served under a pro tem appointment pursuant to article IV, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution and Alaska Administrative Rule 23(a). 6 OCS presented testimony that Kendra has problems with her hips and other joints and that she is delayed in language, muscle development, and gross motor skills. -3- 7032 scheduled for 11:30 a.m., the trial court suggested that Thursday morning might be a good time for the parents to testify, if they intended to do so. The court explained: Well, I would suggest that if the parents are willing to resume at 8:30 [a.m.] or even 9:00 tomorrow, even in the absence of the state’s last witness, based on the fact that I’m sure they’ve already received some discovery about what the state’s last witness is going to say anyway, if they’re willing to start being witnesses themselves, or if they want to be witnesses, we could use the time that way instead of having a whole three hours go unused from 8:30 to 11:30. But again, I realize that it’s not exactly like a criminal case where the defendant has to decide whether to take the stand, but I know that could put pressure on them that they feel is not warranted unless the state has actually rested. Trial was scheduled to resume at 9:00 a.m. but Remy was not present. His attorney explained to the trial court the possibility that she (the attorney) “could have scared [Remy] about testifying” when she “tried to . . . give him some tips and give him some examples of the kind of questions he would get.” The trial court told the parents’ counsel that if their clients wished to testify, they would need to do so that day, but the court assured the attorneys that it would not hold it against either parent if the parent chose not to testify. The trial court affirmed that OCS “still has the same burden.” Both parents eventually arrived for trial, and once they both entered the courtroom, Vera took the witness stand. But Vera’s testimony was interrupted so that OCS could present its final scheduled witness at 11:30 a.m. After OCS rested its case, Remy left the proceedings to attend the mental health and substance abuse assessment. In Remy’s absence, his attorney told the trial court that Remy might be gone up to three hours but that she did not intend to call him as a witness. Remy’s attorney again attempted to explain to the court that Remy was not testifying because he was anxious, -4- 7032 but the court interrupted and said it would not accept counsel’s representations of Remy’s feelings. Vera completed her testimony in Remy’s absence. The trial court offered Remy’s counsel an opportunity to find and consult with her client again about testifying or about closing argument strategy. Remy’s counsel reiterated that Remy “[did not] want to testify” because “[h]e had a lot of anxiety about it.” Again, the trial court cautioned that it would not consider a hearsay report of Remy’s motivations. At the close of trial, the court provided the parties with an hour and a half to prepare for closing arguments and to consult. The court said to Remy’s counsel, “[I]f you wish to consult with your client . . . if he wants to come back for final argument, if you just want to consult with him about what — how he wants his case presented, you have an hour and a half to locate him.” Remy’s attorney responded, “I talked to him about that before. . . . I said if we get that far, what do you want to do, and he told me.” The trial court then proceeded to make oral findings, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that Kendra was in need of aid, and that even though Remy wanted to be a good father, he had been unable to follow through with any changes in his life to become an adequate parent for her in the near future. The court found it “hugely problematic” that Remy had not attained long-term sobriety and had no resources to provide for his daughter. The court addressed Kendra’s best interests and found, through expert testimony and beyond a reasonable doubt, that returning Kendra to either parent would likely cause her serious emotional or physical damage. The trial court also noted that both parents had “extraordinarily able and devoted lawyers.” Two months passed before the trial court issued written findings, in September 2014, again finding that Kendra was a child in need of aid pursuant to -5- 7032 AS 47.10.011(6) (physical harm),7 (9) (neglect),8 and (10) (substance abuse).9 The trial court made detailed findings on all required statutory factors before terminating both parents’ rights to Kendra. Remy does not appeal the substance of the trial court’s decision. Instead he argues that the trial court violated his right to due process because it failed to advise him that he had a right to testify and because it permitted his attorney to waive that right in his absence. Remy argues in the alternative that even if he was not denied due process, “this court should remand the case for development of the record in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”