Opinion ID: 1171416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did DHSS fail to provide reasonable remedial services to K.F.? [12]

Text: CINA Rule 15(g) requires that [i]n any case in which the court has authorized the Department to remove the child from the child's home, or continued a previous order for removal, the court shall make findings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) as to whether, under the circumstances of the case, reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from the home and to make it possible for the child to return to the home. [13] See also E.A. v. State, 623 P.2d 1210, 1213 (Alaska 1981) (reasonable effort to preserve and strengthen family fulfilled by offering counseling and supervision). K.F. argues that the reunification effort of DHSS was unreasonable in that it did not take into account her disability. Specifically, K.F. notes that she had been diagnosed as being within the borderline range of intelligence [14] with a cognitive disability. Due to K.F.'s difficulty in processing information, particularly verbal information, clinical psychologist Richard Lazur recommended that K.F. receive [a]ctive participation parent training classes, preferably with the children because [s]he prefers an active visual style of learning. K.F. admits that DHSS had a reunification plan and that she received training in parental skills under this plan. However, K.F. believes that the plan was fatally flawed. Between December 1988 and June 1989, DHSS sponsored supervised visits, which took place at DFYS. Additionally, during this time, the parents and the children were evaluated, and the parents attended parenting classes at the Center for Children and Parents. In June 1989, DHSS adopted a second plan which provided hands on learning. However, K.F. still considers the overall plan unreasonable. First, she believes that the services in the second plan were not geared toward a developmentally disabled parent and that not a single service provider with any experience in working with retarded persons was assigned to the case. Second, K.F. considers it unreasonable that the second plan was only in effect for six months before DHSS petitioned for termination of her rights. She cites DHSS's CSP manual, which recommends one year of services before a decision be made to terminate rights on the basis that the client is not making progress. The state contends that the services offered by DHSS were well coordinated and geared specifically to K.F. Additionally, the state argues that the services were in place long enough for the professionals to determine that K.F.'s abilities were not going to improve. The state cites the fact that monthly meetings were held by those involved in K.F.'s treatment plan to discuss K.F.'s case. Moreover, information on treating the developmentally disabled was obtained and distributed at these meetings. The state describes how the members of the treatment team all modified their treatment procedures to accommodate K.F.: During the supervised visits, Molly Heath used hands-on modeling to teach appropriate parenting skills.... In individual therapy, Dee Foster used a concrete approach to treat K.F., including the use of visual aids and videotapes. Suzanne Ascott geared the homemaker services to K.F. by using information she received from a group in Denver that works with developmentally handicapped adults, by making lists, and by writing out on posterboard the safety-proofing that K.F. needed to accomplish before the children came to the home for visits. Terry Kyle, the parent/infant educator, also used every recommended avenue, including videotapes, handouts, and writing things out herself, in trying to teach K.F. the skills necessary to help the children with their delays. Public health nurse Jean Baker, who has experience in dealing with developmentally disabled adults, also made sure that she presented her instructions in a manner that was understandable to K.F. (Citations omitted). Here, the superior court did not make an explicit finding that the treatment plan was reasonable. CINA Rule 15(g) requires a finding of reasonableness. In any case in which the court has authorized the Department to remove the child from the child's home ... the court shall make findings ... as to whether, under the circumstances of the case, reasonable efforts were made to ... make it possible for the child to return to the home. (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, we conclude that this question must be remanded to the superior court for a specific finding of whether reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the home. Again, the heightened burden and the drastic nature of termination of parental rights mandate a remand. REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.