Opinion ID: 2498669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The August 2009 Permanency Hearing

Text: In August of 2009 Paula, having just returned from her trip to Montana to care for her ailing mother, expected that the children would be placed back with her. The State, having given credence to tribal criticisms of Paula coming through Tribal Administrator Dubov, was at that time moving away from Paula as a placement option. A permanency hearing is required by Alaska law [2] to insure that children do not drift in foster care [3] and thus the August 2009 permanency hearing was extremely important to the direction that the children's case would take. At the hearing OCS set out both the case against Paula and the case favoring placement with the Dubovs. Several critical points were established at this hearing: First, OCS reported that it had received a report of harm concerning the children occur[ing] right before [they were] removed from [their] grandmother. Next, it was stated that the parents had relinquished their parental rights and that the permanent goal was adoption for the children. OCS then reported that the [Dubovs] are doing a fine job with the kids. Finally, it was indicated that grandmother is okay with the plan now. Had Paula been present at this hearing, she doubtless would have contested every one of these assertions. As to the removal of the children, she testifiedin November 2010 when she was finally given her right to be heardthat the children were not removed from her in the summer of 2009 but rather she requested temporary respite care while she traveled to Montana to care for her mother. As to the report of harm, she would have been able to present her response to it. As to Maddie's relinquishment, she would have notified the court that Maddie had relinquished with the expectation that the children would be going to Paula, as was evident from Maddie's attempt to withdraw her relinquishment only 14 days after signing the papers and Paula's testimony. As to the permanent goal of adoption, the suggestion that the Dubovs were doing fine, and that Paula was okay with the plan, Paula would have been on notice that OCS was firmly moving away from her as the adoptive placement and toward the Dubovs and she would have had the chance to voice her objection to that development. Today's opinion concludes that Paula's absence at this hearing did not prejudice her because the placement decision would not have changed at this hearing given the concerns raised about Paula's parenting resulting in the loss of her foster care license. But this rationale actually serves to underscore the prejudice she suffered: Charges were raised about her parenting that she knew nothing about for over a year. Paula of course knew about her licensure problem, but believed that she was working with OCS to correct that problem. Then, when Paula was finally given notice and told of her right to appeal OCS decisions, the standing master relied heavily on her absence at the earlier hearing and her failure to seek placement for over a year: Only when ... placement [with a relative in Montana] was determined not to be in the best interest of the kids ... only then, 14, 15, 16 months after you were told by Lori Wikle and Valerie Nelson in person [that the children would not be returned] when you got back from Montana, only then did you contact Lori and ask to have placement back with you. But Paula presented evidence that suggests she tried to have the children placed with her when she returned from Montana. She thought she was working with OCS to overcome the problems with her foster care license: Q. Did you reapply for your foster care license ... ? A. ... I figured I had to work with OCS and find out what was going on and what the process was to even get the children back. .... Q. ... [You] didn't ask for placement of the children at that time because you were trying to work with everybody and be cooperative? A. Well, yeah. Wouldn't that be the first step in trying to regain something? Thus, at the very time the court was being told that the grandmother is okay with the plan, Paula was trying to regain custody of the children and was unaware of OCS's plan to place them with the Dubovs. Not only was she unable to voice this to the court, she thought she was on the path towards reunification. Given Paula's continued desire to have the children with her and OCS's continued involvement with Paula, such as encouraging supervised visits and stopping by her house to discuss the children, it is highly problematic to conclude that Paula's absence from this hearing did not prejudice her. The court's conclusion is problematic for another reason. The court notes that very little changed at the August 2009 permanency hearing because the permanency plan remained adoption. But this ignores the reality that the prior permanency plan was approved in the context of Paula acting as the foster parent, that is, as the putative adoptive parent. At the August 2009 hearing the court found that placement with the Dubovs was in the best interests of the children. The court had thus moved away from adoption by Paula and toward adoption by the Dubovs. Paula was prejudiced by her absence. [4]