Opinion ID: 2582424
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The CINA case

Text: On January 23, 2004, Terry entered into a stipulation and order in open court before Superior Court Judge Sharon L. Gleason. At the outset of this stipulation, Terry agreed, without admitting any criminal act, that his children were children in need of aid because they had been exposed to domestic violence and because Jodi had disclosed sexual abuse by her father. Terry, however, expressly denie[d] the sexual abuse. The stipulation and order then went on to note that the superior court had found by clear and convincing evidence that the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if left in the custody of the father; that OCS would retain temporary custody of the children; that the children would continue in their placement with their maternal grandparents; and that OCS had devised a case plan for family reunification that all parties agreed was reasonable. As part of OCS's case plan, Terry was required to participate in a sexual offender/mental health assessment and comply with any treatment recommendations. Terry agreed in the stipulation and order that this case plan was in the best interests of his children and expressed his intention to work on a reunification plan to regain custody of [Tania and Bobbie]. He noted, however, that he underst[ood] and respect[ed] [Jodi's] wish not to live with him at the present time. After the stipulation and order was entered, the guardian ad litem (GAL) moved the superior court for a factual finding by clear and convincing evidence that Terry had in fact sexually abused Jodi. Terry objected, arguing that he had not had an opportunity to present evidence due to the execution of the stipulation and order. To address this concern, the superior court scheduled an evidentiary hearing at which Terry and all other parties would be afforded an opportunity to present additional evidence. The evidentiary hearing took place as scheduled, but neither Terry nor any other party presented additional evidence. As a result, the superior court ultimately found by a preponderance of the evidence that Terry had sexually abused Jodi. The superior court did not, however, make this finding by clear and convincing evidence. In April 2004 the superior court held a disposition hearing. A month after this hearing, the superior court issued an order in which it found that OCS was making reasonable efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to reunify the family; that although the father was in compliance with OCS's case plan, OCS's efforts at reunification had not yet proven successful; and that the children would therefore continue in OCS's custody for a period not to exceed two years. In November 2004 the superior court held a permanency hearing. After the close of this hearing, the court found that the children continued to be children in need of aid; that efforts to reunify the family had not yet been successful; and that removal remain[ed] necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the children. It then went on to explain that the permanent plan for Jodi was guardianship with her maternal grandmother while the permanent plan for the other two children was reunification with their father conditioned upon his successful completion of sex offender treatment.