Opinion ID: 2455274
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Christina was given a reasonable time in which to remedy the conditions placing Gideon at substantial risk of harm.

Text: Christina argues that she was not given a reasonable time to remedy the conditions placing Gideon at risk of harm. She puts particular emphasis on what she describes as the shocking timeline of the case. Gideon was born in February 2009 and taken into OCS custody in June 2009, when he was less than four months old. In September 2009, OCS added adoption as a concurrent goal to reunification. Two months later, in November 2009, the goal was modified to adoption only. OCS filed its petition for termination in early March 2010, for a total of approximately nine months between the time Gideon was taken into custody and the filing of the petition. The termination trial took place in July 2010, when Gideon was 17 months oldapproximately 13 months after OCS initially took custody. Christina argues that AS 47.10.088, which mandates that OCS petition for termination when a child has been in foster care for at least 15 of the past 22 months, soundly suggests that 22 months is a reasonable time period during which both the `efforts' required and the decision regarding the initiation of a termination can be made. Christina also points to language from the superior court's findings that she would need a total of 15 to 21 months to complete the steps in her case plan and [13] months would not . . . afford her adequate time. She also cites recent CINA cases in which this court has terminated parental rights after periods of multiple years. These arguments are not persuasive. First, as Christina acknowledges in her brief, AS 47.10.088(g) explicitly allows OCS to file a petition for termination before the expiration of the mandatory foster care period (i.e., 15 out of 22 months) if it determines that filing a petition is in the best interests of the child. This provision suggests that the 22-month period is not intended as a minimum time OCS must wait before filing. [22] Rather, OCS determines when to file a petition based exclusively on the best interests of the child; the statute defines reasonable time not as a specific number of months or by reference to parents' needs, but as a period of time that serves the best interests of the child, taking in account the affected child's age, emotional and developmental needs, and ability to form and maintain lasting attachments. [23] As the superior court noted, this period is likely to be shorter for young children; the legislature has recognized, and expert witnesses confirmed in this case, that children undergo a critical attachment process before . . . they reach six years of age, and a failure to bond with adult caregivers during this time can result in lasting emotional damage. [24] Christina also omits crucial context from the superior court's description of the time she needed to complete treatment. The superior court did observe that 13 months would not be adequate time for Christina to complete her case plan, but the court went on to state, The force of this argument is blunted, however, by the fact that, by the time of trial, [Christina] had done virtually nothing to start changing her behaviors that placed [Gideon] at substantial risk of harm. The court's language implies that it would not have expected Christina to complete the treatment she needed within 13 months, but her failure to make any real progress toward doing so indicated that there was a very low likelihood of returning Gideon to her care within a reasonable time based on his age and needsa permitted consideration under AS 47.10.088(b). The superior court concluded, Given [Christina's] slow progress to date, [Gideon] could be two and one-half or three years old before [Christina] was ready to be a stable, protective parent for him. [Gideon] cannot wait that long: His needs for permanence, stability and security are too great. Gideon's young age and the slow pace of Christina's progress are also significant in distinguishing this case from other parental termination cases Christina cites. It is true that the nine-month period between OCS's taking custody of Gideon and petitioning for termination of parental rights was unusually brief relative to the majority of CINA cases. As Christina points out, OCS has frequently remained involved with families for multiple years before petitioning for termination. [25] But as noted, very young children have unique needs for permanency and bonding. McDaniel cited Gideon's age as an important factor in the speed with which OCS added adoption as a concurrent goal, noting it is different to look for permanency for an infant than a 10-year-old or a 14-year-old and the fact that [OCS involvement] started so early in this child's life is definitely a factor in the timing of termination proceedings. [26] We do not suggest that 13 months is an objectively reasonable time for parents to remedy their conduct; as reflected in our past CINA decisions, this determination must be made on a case-by-case basis and the amount of time considered reasonable will vary. But we emphasize that the statute clearly puts the criteria for reasonable time in terms of the child's needs. Based on Gideon's age and Christina's lack of progress, we cannot say that it was clear error for the superior court to find that the time allowed Christina was reasonable in light of Gideon's needs. We hold that the superior court did not err by finding that Christina failed to remedy, within a reasonable time, the conditions placing Gideon at risk.