Kami C. v. State
| Docket Number | S-18416 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | KAMI C., Appellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, OFFICE OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alaska (US) |
UNPUBLISHED See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Kodiak, Nos. 3KO-18-00021, 3KO-18-00022 3KO-18-00023, 3KO-18-00024 CN Stephen B. Wallace, Judge.
Jason A. Weiner, Jason Weiner &Associates, P.C., Fairbanks, for Appellant.
Mary Ann Lundquist, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Fairbanks and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, Carney, Borghesan, Henderson and Pate, Justices.
I. INTRODUCTION
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. She argues that the superior court erred by determining that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) made reasonable efforts to reunite her with her children, and clearly erred by finding that she failed to remedy the conduct or conditions that placed her children at substantial risk of harm, and that termination of her parental rights was in her children's best interests. We affirm the termination order.
11. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Kami is the mother of five children, four of whom are involved in this case.[1] She has struggled with drug addiction since around 2013. OCS received reports about Kami's drug use in 2014 when she was pregnant with her third child; that child tested positive for methamphetamine and cocaine at birth. OCS took custody of the children after the birth of Kami's fourth child in 2015. OCS closed the case and released custody of the children to Kami after she successfully completed inpatient substance abuse treatment around the spring of 2017. Within two months of returning home Kami had relapsed and was using drugs again.
In early 2018 OCS received reports that Kami had relapsed. In April OCS arranged an in-home safety plan for Kami's parents to supervise her contact with the children at all times. Kami was initially cooperative with OCS and interested in more drug treatment. In July, after receiving reports that the children were left unsupervised with Kami and known drug dealers, OCS included Kami's sister as an additional supervisor of Kami's contact with the children. After receiving a report that Kami had attempted to buy drugs while accompanied by one of the children, OCS made an unannounced visit to Kami's parents' home in mid-September accompanied by several law enforcement officers. Her parents were away commercial fishing. Kami and a man she identified as her drug dealer were the only adults in the house. One of the police officers with OCS tested the children's possessions for the presence of drugs; their possessions tested positive for methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine.
OCS removed the children and filed an emergency petition for adjudication and temporary custody. At the emergency hearing the superior court granted OCS temporary custody. The children were placed back with their maternal grandparents. OCS prohibited Kami from having unsupervised contact with the children, so she moved out of her parents' home and started living out of her car.
The court held a status hearing in October. The court observed that under AS 47.10.011(10), Kami's drug use within a year after successfully completing treatment was prima facie evidence that her ability to parent was impaired and that she posed a substantial risk of harm to the children.[2] The court advised Kami that the statute "may be something that you want to talk about with [your lawyer]."
The court held several hearings, including an adjudication hearing, over the next year and found that the children were in need of aid due to Kami's relapse. Kami repeatedly asked for more visits with the children.
OCS filed a petition to terminate Kami's parental rights in January 2020. After she failed to attend the August 2020 termination trial, the court terminated her parental rights on the basis of OCS's offer of proof.
The children remained with their maternal grandparents. But after receiving reports that the grandparents were not supervising Kami's visits with the children, OCS moved the children to their paternal grandmother's home in a community primarily accessible by plane.
In March 2021, Kami moved for relief from termination, stating that OCS did not give her the correct date for the termination trial. The court granted Kami's motion and restored her parental rights in April.
A second termination trial was held over six days between September 2021 and February 2022. OCS called each of the caseworkers that had worked with the family, a state trooper, and the children's paternal grandmother as witnesses. Kami called her parents as witnesses and testified herself.
The OCS caseworkers testified about their interactions with Kami; some described OCS's efforts in the previous case. The initial caseworker testified that Kami had at first been "very cooperative" with OCS, but started to go "off the radar" after a few months and became a "chronic no-show" for her appointments. As a result, the caseworker drafted a case plan without Kami's participation. The caseworker testified that she made "multiple referrals" to services including drug treatment programs and tried to meet with Kami "where she was comfortable."
The second caseworker testified that Kami initially appeared to be "taking the case planning seriously." But she testified that Kami acknowledged she had unsupervised contact with the children and admitted that she had not been attending counseling consistently. The caseworker testified that OCS continued to have concerns about Kami's unsupervised contact with the children, and would not consider a trial home visit until Kami demonstrated "a pattern of sobriety" and engagement with OCS.
Another caseworker testified she was "not successful in being able to reach [Kami] at any time" and that she was "not aware of [Kami] making any efforts towards changing her behaviors." Other caseworkers testified about Kami's failure to engage in services and described contact with Kami ranging from "pleasant to escalated." One caseworker testified that OCS consistently texted Kami but that Kami's responses varied, describing one incident when Kami called OCS 13 times over a few minutes. The caseworker also testified that Kami slashed OCS employees' tires and once "messed with" her vehicle. An OCS supervisor testified that she traveled to Kami's community to meet with Kami and provide a referral for drug testing, but Kami was significantly late to their appointment and was unwilling to reschedule or participate in a drug test.
OCS called the children's paternal grandmother, who testified that the children communicated with Kami and Kami's parents through video and messaging while they were in her care. OCS's final witness was a state trooper who had known Kami for many years. The trooper testified about a conversation he had with Kami, who said she was going to kidnap her children after OCS moved them to their paternal grandmother's home.
Kami and her parents presented a different account of events. Kami testified that OCS lied to her, failed to communicate with her, and did not facilitate visitation as it should have. Kami's parents offered a favorable assessment of Kami's parenting abilities, stated that OCS did not communicate with them consistently, and asserted that OCS interfered with visitation after the children were removed from their home.
The superior court terminated Kami's parental rights in May 2022. It found that the children were children in need of aid based on AS 47.10.011(1) (abandonment),[3] (6) (risk of physical harm),[4] (9) (neglect)[5] and (10) (substance abuse).[6] The court also found that Kami had failed to remedy the conduct or conditions that caused the children to be in need of aid, and that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children. Kami appeals.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
IV. DISCUSSION
Kami argues that OCS failed to make reasonable efforts because it did not involve her in creating a case plan, was disorganized and unresponsive to her, and made only minimal effort to coordinate visits with the children. Kami also argues that OCS actively interfered with visits.
Kami asserts that OCS did "little to no case planning" after her initial meetings with caseworkers. She argues that having so many different assigned caseworkers shows that OCS was too disorganized to have made reasonable efforts. And she argues that the supervisor's inability to remember whether she had a conversation with Kami about her concerns illustrates how transferring the case could have led to a "loss of information." Kami also argues that OCS was not responsive and did not answer her or her parents' calls. Kami claims that OCS did not provide her with reasonable visitation and accuses OCS of actually interfering...
To continue reading
Request your trial