Opinion ID: 2341803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incarceration

Text: In two decisions, Nada A. v. State [17] and A.M. v. State, [18] we concluded that courts could not rely on the fact of a party's incarceration alone to prove abandonment because it was not the type of willful act upon which abandonment may be based. [19] In response to these decisions, the legislature enacted legislation intended to overrule that holding. [20] This legislation included AS 47.10.011(2), which provides that a parent's incarceration can be a basis for finding a child to be in need of aid if the other parent is absent or has committed conduct or created conditions that cause the child to be a child in need of aid under this chapter, and the incarcerated parent has not made adequate arrangements for the child. David argues that he did make arrangements for Hannah's care while he was incarcerated by giving his mother a power of attorney over his legal affairs and his children's needs. However, David did not produce this power of attorney at his termination trial. Further, during David's incarceration Claire never actually had custody of the children. They instead remained with Diane until she arranged for OCS to take custody, at which point they went into foster placements. David points to a letter that his mother sent to OCS on September 6, 2009, in which she stated that she wished to have custody of Hannah. The superior court did not discuss the possibility of David's mother caring for Hannah in its termination ruling. Although while he was incarcerated David contacted OCS several times about Hannah before OCS took custody of the child, there does not appear to be any evidence that he attempted to place her with Claire. We therefore affirm the superior court's finding that Hannah was a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011(2).