Angelica C. v. Jonathan C.

• Citation: 519 P.3d 334
• Docket Number: Supreme Court No. S-18015
• Decision Date: 14 October 2022
• Parties: ANGELICA C., Appellant, v. JONATHAN C., Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alaska (US)

519 P.3d 334

ANGELICA C., Appellant,

v.JONATHAN C., Appellee.

Supreme Court No. S-18015

Supreme Court of Alaska.

October 14, 2022

Rehearing Denied November 10, 2022

Angelica C., pro se, Petersburg, Appellant.

Fred W. Triem, Petersburg, for Appellee.

Before: Winfree, Chief Justice, Maassen, Carney, Borghesan, and Henderson, Justices.

OPINION

CARNEY, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

A woman filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the father of her child because the child was conceived as a result of sexual abuse. After years of litigation, including a previous appeal, the superior court held a hearing on the petition and denied it. The woman appeals. We affirm the superior court's denial of her petition.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS¹

Jonathan C. and Angelica C. had a sexual relationship which led to the birth of their child when Jonathan was 19 and Angelica was 14 years old.² In 2010 Jonathan was convicted of attempted sexual abuse of a minor.³ Their child, J.T., was born in March 2010.⁴

A. Termination Proceedings

1. The 2016 petition to terminate parental rights

Angelica, Jonathan, and their families have been involved in disputes regarding J.T.’s custody since 2013.⁵ At various times Angelica, her parents, Jonathan, and Jonathan's father have had either shared or sole custody of J.T.⁶ In 2016 Angelica filed a petition based on former AS 25.23.180(e) to terminate Jonathan's parental rights.⁷ That statute authorized termination of parental rights in cases where sexual abuse of a minor resulted in the conception of a child.⁸ The superior court concluded that the statute only allowed termination in an adoption case⁹ or a child in need of aid (CINA) case.¹⁰ Because Angelica filed her petition in a custody case, the superior court concluded that her petition was not authorized by the statute and denied it.¹¹ Angelica filed a petition to this court for review of the decision, which we granted.¹²

2. Our 2020 opinion

In 2020 we reversed the superior court's order denying Angelica's petition to terminate Jonathan's parental rights.¹³ Prior to our consideration of the superior court's order, the legislature amended AS 25.23.180.¹⁴ Although the new law had taken effect, we interpreted former AS 25.23.180 to allow a petition for termination of parental rights in "an ‘independent proceeding’ distinct from adoption and CINA proceedings."¹⁵ We concluded that "the effect of the 2018 amendments was to clarify the statute" and remove any doubt that a petition to terminate parental rights could proceed in an "independent proceeding."¹⁶ And we disavowed dicta in previous cases which stated that adoption and CINA proceedings were the only "[t]wo means ... for involuntarily terminating parental rights in Alaska."¹⁷ Since Jonathan had "testified he had sexual intercourse with Angelica multiple times when she was 13 years old and he was at least 18 years old, and his admitted sexual abuse of Angelica is ‘an act constituting sexual assault or sexual abuse of a minor,’ " we held that "Jonathan is subject to having his parental rights terminated, but only if the superior court determines that it is in J.T.’s best interests to do so."¹⁸

We recognized that the stakes in a termination action under AS 25.23.180 "are higher than in an ordinary custody case" and the "irrevocable termination of parental rights is normally accompanied by heightened protections for the adverse parent."¹⁹ But we also acknowledged the legislature's choice to "protect the victims of sexual abuse from being subjected to years-long custody disputes with their assailants, re-victimizing them[,]" which "militate[d] in favor of weighing the underlying sexual abuse more heavily, and ... that the victim-parent's rights should receive strong, though not necessarily dispositive, consideration."²⁰ We directed that, on remand, the superior court must consider "the relevant best interests factors enumerated in the custody and adoption contexts, as well as other factors germane to the child's best interests, giving appropriate weight to the legislative policy choices" inherent in AS 25.23.180(c)(2).²¹

3. Termination proceedings on remand

On remand Angelica moved to proceed with the termination in the superior court. The superior court scheduled an evidentiary hearing in August 2020. By that time Jonathan had moved to Washington while Angelica and J.T. remained in Alaska.²²

The guardian ad litem (GAL) who had been appointed to represent J.T.’s best interests filed a pre-hearing brief. She described the ten-year-old's situation, including his relationship with both sides of his family, and offered her opinion regarding J.T.’s best interests. The GAL wrote that J.T. "knows and loves his father, paternal [grandparents and] has relationships with a large extended family on his father's side" including a half-brother. The GAL reported that Jonathan had anticipated that J.T. would be able to join him in Washington, and, although that had not been possible, the two had long daily phone calls when J.T. stayed with Jonathan's father. The GAL also recognized J.T.’s close relationship with his maternal grandparents, observing that J.T. "spent more time with [them] than with any other members of his family."

But the GAL opined that "the maternal grandparents have made it their goal to terminate the rights of [J.T.’s] father, ... have control of their grandson and eliminate" any connection between J.T. and Jonathan's family. The GAL noted Angelica's parents had "tremendous influence" over J.T., leading J.T. to repeat whatever they told him to say. The GAL referred to the "great lengths" Angelica and her parents had undertaken to disrupt J.T.’s relationship with Jonathan and his family, including repeated unsubstantiated allegations that Jonathan and his family were involved in "drug abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse." The GAL concluded that the "significance of [J.T.’s relationship with Jonathan] should not be underestimated" and that it was "not in [J.T.’s] best interests for his father's parental rights to be terminated." The GAL acknowledged the "huge" consequences of Jonathan's illegal relationship with Angelica, but ultimately concluded that J.T. "should not have to suffer the loss of his father and his father's family."

At the August hearing Angelica called her father as a witness. Her father testified that J.T. would continue to reside with Angelica, his wife, and him if Jonathan's parental rights were terminated. When asked how that would affect J.T.’s relationship with his other grandfather, Angelica's father responded that he thought that "fundamentally nothing will change," but he conceded that he would not support a custody agreement which granted Jonathan's parents any sort of visitation. He also testified that "the circumstances have to be based on what the mother feels."

Angelica testified next. She testified that termination of Jonathan's parental rights was "the only way for me to begin the healing process," and that she believed the healing would help her become a better mother. When asked to describe what sort of relationship J.T. would have with his paternal grandparents if Jonathan's paternal rights were terminated, Angelica stated it would be "whatever [J.T.] feels comfortable with." Angelica also testified that, although she had previously abused drugs,²³ she had completed a substance abuse treatment program the previous year, and that she had been sober since that time.

Jonathan testified after Angelica. He reported that he had not seen J.T. in person since he moved to Washington in February 2019. He testified that he spoke to J.T. daily when J.T. was at Jonathan's father's house. Jonathan testified that he had moved to Washington for a better job "to support [J.T.] and try to build a [better life]," and that he sent money to his father to help pay for J.T.’s needs. Jonathan also stated that it was important for J.T. to know all of his family, including Angelica and her parents, and that he wanted J.T. to spend time with him and his parents in order to understand his Mexican heritage.

J.T.’s attorney advised the court that she could not accurately represent J.T.’s position to the court, noting that "he's [ten], and I don't know that he completely understands the legal ramifications" of the hearing. She stated that J.T. had "most definitely received pressure from [Angelica's] side of the family" regarding the termination proceedings. When she had been able to speak with J.T., he had told her that he didn't "want to hurt people's feelings" which made his attorney "really concerned."

4. 2021 order denying termination

The superior court denied Angelica's petition to terminate Jonathan's parental rights in early 2021. The court acknowledged our opinion that the 2018 amendments to AS 25.23.180 simply clarified the previous version of the statute. After considering the best interests factors found in AS 47.10.088(b)²⁴ the court concluded that "the factors ... applicable in [a] termination of parental rights action in the [CINA] context" were difficult to apply because "the factual background in the instant case [bore] little or no resemblance to a CINA case, where a child is removed from a parent's home" due to abuse or neglect. It nonetheless considered AS 47.10.088(b) ’s "nonexhaustive list" of factors. The court found it difficult to assess "the likelihood of returning the child to the parent"²⁵ since Jonathan had left Alaska and had no immediate plan to return. The court concluded that "[i]n terms of the other relevant factors set forth at AS 47.10.088(b)" Jonathan had not engaged in any further criminal conduct, there was no evidence he would do so in the future, and his prior criminal conduct did not "directly negatively affect the child."²⁶

The court then turned to the factors established in AS 25.24.150(c).²⁷ The court found that the current custody arrangement — in which J.T. was primarily in the custody of Angelica and her parents, but spent some time with Jonathan's...