Opinion ID: 2498669
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Paula's Return To Alaska

Text: Upon her return to Alaska in August 2009, Paula learned that OCS was not planning to return the children to her. In September 2009 the State did not renew Paula's foster care license because two of the reports of harm made against her had been substantiated. Wikle testified that even though Paula was no longer considered a proper placement, she was willing to try to work with Paula to address the concerns that led to the children not being placed with her. It is unclear from the record whether the denial of the foster care license or other concerns precipitated OCS's refusal to return the children to Paula. But it is clear that the children were never returned to Paula's care, and Paula never reapplied for the foster care license. There is some dispute between the parties as to when Paula actually requested placement. Paula testified that while she did not make a formal request, it was well known to OCS that she wanted the children returned to her care. [10] She also explained that she did not ask that the children be placed with her or attempt to renew her foster license because she was trying to work with OCS toward the eventual return of the children: 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? Paula formally made a request for placement in September 2010, and it was denied. OCS asserted that this was Paula's first request for placement, although OCS had been working with Paula, calling to set up scheduled visits and leaving cards at her door. Paula was still involved with the children after she returned from Montana. For several weeks, she provided daycare and after-school care for the children. But OCS suspended these visits due to concerns about the children's behavior when they returned to the Dubovs. According to OCS, Paula needed to work on OCS's concerns and engage in supervised visits in order to continue her relationship with the children. Visitation supervisors were sought at two Gulkana tribal council meetings, and although there were two volunteers to supervise the visits, the visits never occurred. Wikle testified that she called and stopped by Paula's house numerous times to connect with Paula in hopes of encouraging a relationship with the children, but Paula denies that these contacts occurred. At no point did OCS develop a formal plan to help Paula obtain custody of the children. In February 2010 OCS filed for temporary and long-term protective orders preventing Paula from going near the children. OCS also implemented a no-contact order for Paula and Maddie after Paula made allegations, which turned out to be unsubstantiated, that Mr. Dubov was acting inappropriately toward Callie and Tawny and that the children were generally neglected. OCS was concerned that Paula had coerc[ed] Callie into writing a letter alleging inappropriate behavior by Mr. Dubov. Paula's tribe, the Northern Cheyenne, attempted to intervene in the case; it was given participant status but denied party status. Until she left for Montana in June 2009, Paula was able to attend all hearings related to the children. But after her return, she did not receive notice of the permanency and placement hearings until she formally requested and was denied placement in September 2010.