Opinion ID: 2639488
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequate income

Text: The M.s allege that the court's finding that the C.s were financially able to care for Lucy was clearly erroneous. They contend (1) that the custody investigator did not fully analyze the C.s' financial status, (2) that the C.s generally had low balances in their checking account, and (3) that their adoption home study was not current and it thereby failed to provide adequate financial information. We reject their claim of error. First, while the custody investigator merely stated her conclusion that all the competing families could meet Lucy's material needs, the author of the adoption home study devoted sufficient attention to the financial issues. She reported that both Elsa and Dillon were employed, found that they provided a clean and comfortable home on their present resources, and noted that they had been referred to the local WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program that provided assistance in meeting children's nutritional needs. The adoption home study similarly concluded that the C.s provided a suitable home. The court had adequate information on this issue. Second, that the balances in the C.s' bank accounts at any one time were low is not indicative of their ability to provide for Lucy. What is important is that they did provide for the child's needs. Based on the evidence before it, the superior court did not clearly err in finding that they did provide for the child's needs. The law requires no more than that the proposed parents be able to meet the child's basic needs. [17] At the time of trial, Elsa C. had a home day care business, and Dillon C. made about $18.50 per hour at his full-time job. Finally, the M.s misinterpret the relevant law regarding home studies. Alaska Statute 25.23.100(e), which the M.s rely upon in arguing that the home study was not current, requires only that a home study be performed within thirty days of the selection of the person who will perform the study, not within thirty days of the final adoption hearing. The M.s have made no showing that this requirement was not met. [18] The M.s have not shown that the superior court clearly erred with regard to any finding that concerned the adequacy of the C.s' income.