 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh P. v. State11/23/2005
he Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 if Alison was out of the home for fifteen of twenty-two months. But there is no evidence that the division petitioned to terminate Hugh's rights for this reason. The division's petition to terminate states that the division sought to terminate Hugh's parental rights under AS 47.10.088(a)(1)(B)(i) because he had not remedied his conduct within a reasonable time. Because the division's petition was filed on July 15, 2003, the division would have been required to file a petition to terminate parental rights if Alison had been out of the home for fifteen months dating back to September 2001 (twenty-two months before the filing of the petition). But Alison was in Barbara's care for a total of thirteen months during this time period - from May 31, 2001 until February 15, 2002 and again from December 19, 2002 until April 21, 2003. Because Alison was only out of the home for nine of twenty-two months when the division filed its petition, and thus the division did not petition to terminate Hugh's rights for this reason, this argument has no merit.
Finally, Hugh argues that the division did not provide active efforts because it did not provide him with a new social worker "when it was clear that he could not work with [social] worker Watson." While the division did assign Hugh a new social worker in February 2004, the evidence reveals that Hugh did not work well with any of the division workers before being assigned to his new social worker. Watson testified that not only did Hugh call her voice mail several times and curse at her, but he regularly cursed at the reception staff at the division. In A.M. v. State, we rejected a father's assertion that the division had a duty to intervene on his behalf, while he was in treatment with the Department of Corrections, "so as to maximize his chances of success." Here, Hugh did not get along with any of the staff at the division for over three years. Hugh's argument would require the division to replace its entire staff until Hugh was satisfied.
In addition, though Hugh's cooperation improved with the appointment of a new social worker, Hugh continued to be oppositional and he made little real progress. Though he did finally attend behavioral and substance abuse assessments and undergo a psychological evaluation with his doctor, he was unwilling to take any of the psychological tests, thereby preventing the evaluator from making as firm recommendations as he might have otherwise. His doctor stated that he would still need more testing, and need to abide by prior recommendations, in order to comply with the case plan. Given these circumstances, the superior court could properly find that Hugh's superficial efforts to follow his case plan were not sufficient to show a genuine change of heart even with the new social worker. Hugh's argument has no merit.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court's decision terminating Hugh's rights.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|