Opinion ID: 2569120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tessa Failed To Remedy Her Conduct Within a Reasonable Time and Returning Tammy to Tessa Would Place Her at Substantial Risk of Harm.

Text: Under AS 47.10.088(a)(2), [13] the termination of parental rights requires a finding by clear and convincing evidence that either the parent has not remedied harmful conduct or conditions or the parent has failed to make enough progress within a reasonable time so that there still is a substantial risk of harm to the child if returned to the parent. Here, Judge Olsen found by clear and convincing evidence that Tessa had not remedied her conduct and that regardless of any progress, there still was a substantial risk of harm to Tammy if she were returned to Tessa. Tessa argues that this court should take a more objective view of her actions rather than utilize the subjective and arbitrary standards applied by OCS and, presumably, the trial court. [14] For example, Tessa points out that she engaged in parenting education and also agreed to pay for some of Carol Brice's services, which is above and beyond what is normally expected from OCS clients. She also notes that she consistently attended visitation with Tammy. To contrast her stated objective conduct to what she views as OCS's inappropriate subjective standards for evaluating her parenting ability, Tessa gives specific examples of trial testimony: Carol Brice's disapproval of Tessa using sessions to braid Tammy's hair; Carmen Brooks' (OCS) criticism of Tessa's insistence that Tammy speak with her relatives on the phone; Beth Gambrell's (FCA) comment that Tessa did not offer Tammy a drink when Tammy was thirsty; and Rachael Coady's (RCPC) testimony that Tessa was bribing Tammy with treats from McDonald's at the end of scheduled visits. We agree with Tessa that these criticisms are not determinative of her parenting ability, but we conclude that they were unnecessary to OCS's case. We also conclude that, despite the objective evidence supporting Tessa's arguments, when all of the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to OCS there is ample support for Judge Olsen's findings that Tessa failed to remedy her conduct and that Tammy would be at substantial risk of harm if she were returned to Tessa. [15] Carol Brice testified that Tessa failed to comprehend Tammy's needs. Brice first had a positive outlook for Tammy and Tessa's relationship, but her hope for reunification deteriorated as Tessa failed to develop an understanding of Tammy's needs and to change her behavior to meet them. Brice stated, Most of the time [Tessa] could not allow herself to understand or comprehend or meet her child's needs at the level the child was expressing the needs. Brice testified that there was [n]o empathy, no concern about the extent of these injuries, how it happened, how it affected [Tammy]. Counselors from both FCA and RCPC testified that Tessa failed to recognize that she needed to work on her parenting skills. Moreover, Tessa conceded at trial that she had not always focused on Tammy's needs and had not realized that her approach to situations with Tammy was a problem. The trial testimony as a whole shows that Tessa failed to make the changes required to meet Tammy's needs, which supports the findings that Tessa failed to remedy her conduct and that Tammy still was at substantial risk of harm. Judge Olsen found that even prior to the burn injury Tammy had been systematically abused. [16] Susan Desrosiers testified that in order to make progress after the burns Tammy suffered, the parents would have to acknowledge what happened to their child. Desrosiers stated that Tessa did not really begin to make this acknowledgment until December 2006, and then more fully in April 2007. This was two years after OCS created a case plan for Tessa, and just before trial. Even this belated acknowledgment of abuse was not complete  Tessa failed to acknowledge Tammy's scars during her counseling sessions with Dr. French, Tessa testified at trial that she did not remember how Tammy obtained the unusual scarring on her thighs, [17] and at trial Tessa continued to deny hitting Tammy in July 2006. [18] Judge Olsen stressed that Tammy was incredibly emotionally damaged and endured emotional and physical abuse and that Tessa either did not protect Tammy or contributed to Tammy's harm, or both. To remedy her conduct and demonstrate that Tammy would not be at substantial risk of harm if returned to her, Tessa would have had to end the abuse, address Tammy's severe emotional damage caused by the prior abuse, come to an understanding of Tammy's needs, and develop a desire and an ability to respond to those needs. Judge Olsen found by clear and convincing evidence that Tessa failed to do so. That finding is adequately supported by the record.