Opinion ID: 2582508
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Include a Visitation Arrangement

Text: C.W. also argues that it was error for the superior court to fail to incorporate a visitation plan into the termination order. But when adequate grounds for termination exist, there is no presumption that the parent should have visitation rights. [15] After parental rights have been fully terminated, the former parent has no residual rights at all certainly the CINA statute provides for none. Because the CINA statute does not expressly provide for post-termination visitation by biological parents, courts probably lack authority to order post-termination visitation. [16] Even if such authority exists under some circumstances, it may be exercised only to the extent that the authorized visitation is in the best interest of the child. [17] The superior court ruled on C.W.'s motion to order visitation only one month before the termination trial began, and found by clear and convincing evidence that [J.S.]'s welfare and best interests are served by disallowing parental visitation until approved by his current therapist Jan Mitchell. The court further ordered that any visitation between [J.S. and C.W.] shall be allowed only under a structured program and as directed by Ms. Mitchell. At trial, Mitchell offered the opinion that a child's reconnection with an absent parent normally should not begin until the child is at least eighteen. C.W. does not persuasively show that it would be in J.S.'s best interest to have contact with him before the age of eighteen.