Opinion ID: 2537973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Superior Court's Finding Concerning the Likelihood of Future Damage

Text: Larry argues that the superior court erred in finding under subsection 1912(f) of ICWA that returning Jenna to his care would cause her serious emotional or physical damage. Larry contends that OCS had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) his conduct was likely to harm Jenna, and (2) it was unlikely his conduct would change. Larry asserts that the superior court incorrectly focused on his personality, not his conduct, in determining the likelihood of harm. OCS argues in response that the superior court was correct to consider Larry's personality traits given the impact those traits had on his conduct. OCS contends that Larry's unresolved mental health issues, his lack of stability and structure, and his denial that Jenna has special treatment needs provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that giving custody to Larry would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to Jenna. In cases involving Indian children, subsection 1912(f) of ICWA requires courts to find, before terminating parental rights, that continued custody with the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. Subsection 1912(f) provides: No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.[ [13] ] We explained in L.G. v. State that establishing the likelihood of damage requires both proof that the parent's conduct is likely to harm the child, and proof that it is unlikely that the parent will change his or her conduct. [14] Those two elements may be proved through the testimony of a single expert witness, by aggregating the testimony of expert witnesses, or by aggregating the testimony of expert and lay witnesses. [15] L.G. concerned two children, one of whom was developmentally delayed, who had been taken into foster care on more than one occasion during their mother's repeated drug and alcohol relapses. [16] Without referring either to the mother's potential for improvement or an explicit finding by the superior court on the issue, we held that the superior court did not err in concluding that the children were at a substantial risk of suffering further mental injury in their mother's care. [17] We similarly hold here that the court satisfied both prongs of L.G. despite the absence of an explicit finding on Larry's poor potential for change. The court made the predictive finding required by L.G. when it implicitly concluded that Larry would not be able to provide for Jenna's special needs. In making this determination, the court relied on four expert assessments indicating that, in light of her neurobehavioral and attention deficits, Jenna needed to be placed in an ordered and structured home environment with a patient and self-disciplined caregiver. Ample evidence supports the superior court's implicit finding that Larry was unlikely to alter the conduct that put Jenna at risk of harm. The court noted that Larry was extremely reluctant to address the defects in his parenting and had not eliminated the dangers posed to Jenna by alcohol abuse and exposure to domestic violence. Larry refused to participate in random urinalysis testing after the petition to revoke parental rights was filed and  as he admits  failed to follow what he termed aftercare recommendations for alcohol treatment. He also permitted Francine to spend the night despite her problems with domestic violence and substance abuse. Larry's claim that the court focused too much on his personality when it should have been evaluating his conduct is unpersuasive. The court expressly found that Larry's conduct, including leaving Jenna unsupervised and locking her up alone for a lengthy period as punishment, amounted to monumental blunders in parenting. It is also significant that, when they were living in the encampment in Hawaii, Larry left Jenna by herself for hours at a time. We likewise note that, when Jenna was taken into Hawaii state custody, Larry allowed her to remain there for eight days and intentionally delayed retaking custody so he could install a roof on his makeshift shelter. Larry's argument also incorrectly assumes that there is an irreconcilable dichotomy between personality and conduct. Although the superior court appears to have taken Larry's personality into account in evaluating his ability to parent Jenna, it is appropriate to consider a parent's mental or psychological limitations when they are associated with conduct that could be harmful to the child. [18] The court was justified in considering whether Larry's schizoid personality trait might affect his lifestyle, behavior, and conduct in such a way as to limit his ability to provide for Jenna's needs. We conclude that the record adequately supports the court's apparent finding that Larry's personality could be harmful to Jenna. The licensed clinical social worker who performed a mental health assessment of Larry indicated in her written report that his schizotypal personality trait certainly impacts the way that he parents his daughter. She testified at the first termination hearing that it likely caused Larry to misinterpret Jenna's maturity level and would potentially make it difficult for Larry to assist Jenna with her own interpersonal and academic difficulties. The psychologist who examined Larry in 2007 also recognized personality traits similar to those first observed in 2005 and noted in his report that these traits were characterized by the preference to maintain interpersonal distance and behavior that has little regard for social convention. He gave no indication that Larry's mental health issues would be resolved and instead noted that the prognosis of a good therapeutic outcome was guarded. Therefore, the court's comments about personality help explain why it implicitly found that Larry's conduct, which had posed a danger to Jenna in the past, was unlikely to change. Given the expert assessments of Jenna's parenting needs, the lack of structure and stability in Larry's life, and his resistance to OCS's remedial efforts, there was sufficient evidence, satisfying the reasonable doubt standard, on which to base a determination that Jenna likely would suffer serious emotional, if not physical, damage if she were returned to Larry's custody. We accordingly hold that the superior court's finding as to the likelihood of serious future damage was not clearly erroneous.