Court Opinion

ID: 9785314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:15:34.18838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:15.727381
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the court that the Office of Children’s Services violated the Jacobs’ rights by failing to provide them notice of their grandchildren’s CINA proceedings and permanency hearings. I also agree with the court’s assessment that this case presents a disturbing set of facts. However, for most of the reasons the court provides in its discussion of injunctive relief,1 I believe that the Jacobs’ appeal seeking declaratory relief is moot.
The CINA proceedings and permanency hearings for the grandchildren are all underway or have already been resolved. The Jacobs successfully intervened in all three cases. As the court recognizes, the crux of the Jacobs’ suit was the denial of their opportunity to be heard. This denial has been remedied — to the extent that it can be — and a declaration of rights that are already guaranteed by statute2 will do little to aid the Jacobs in the future. The court’s speculation that OCS might, if the opportunity arose, again disregard the Jacobs’ rights should not alter the mootness analysis.3 The plain fact is that there is no longer a present controversy in this case. For this reason I would dismiss this appeal as moot.

. Op. at 1186-87.

. AS 47.10.030(b).

. The fact that this case is no longer ripe can be demonstrated by assuming that a litigant petitioned for declaratory relief based solely on such speculation. A court would deny relief for failure to establish a sufficient likelihood of future injury.