 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jena H. v. State5/4/2005
t Nick was a child in need of aid under subsection .011(10).
2. The superior court did not err in finding that Nick remained at substantial risk of harm.
The superior court found that the conditions causing Nick to be placed at risk, substance abuse and domestic violence, "still exist. [Darrell] has untreated anger issues and untreated substance abuse issues. These alone are sufficient to place [Nick] at risk and they have also been closely related to the domestic violence history between the parties which places [Nick] at risk in their home."
Darrell argues that he had nothing to remedy because his behavior never harmed Nick or placed him at substantial risk of being harmed. Actual harm is not required for DFYS to intervene. Additionally, Darrell's behavior that put Nick at risk is discussed in part III.B.1, supra.
Darrell also asserts that he has worked on his case plans, attended required counseling and training, and addressed substance abuse issues. Although Darrell made some attempts to comply with his case plans, the record supports that the superior court did not err in finding that the risks to Nick were ongoing and had not been remedied. Darrell admitted never completing residential substance abuse treatment. He also acknowledged that he continued to drink alcohol as of August 2004, despite his conviction for driving under the influence . Additionally, although he claimed to have completed an anger management program, he never provided documentation and continued to exhibit violent behavior, kicking and shattering a glass door at DFYS. Moreover, he admitted in August 2004 that he still did not have his anger in check "when it comes to DFYS."
3. The superior court did not err in finding that DFYS made reasonable efforts at reunification.
The superior court found that DFYS made reasonable efforts at reunification as required under AS 47.10.088(a)(2) and 47.10.086. Darrell asserts that DFYS failed to make referrals for services prescribed by his case plan and made no effort to verify his attempts to complete the case plan requirements.
DFYS and the Department of Corrections offered a number of services.
Darrell was provided with visitation, substance abuse treatment, a psychological assessment, bus passes, and drug testing. His social worker explained that progress on anger management and other programs could not be obtained until Darrell completed substance abuse treatment. Darrell failed to complete his substance abuse treatment and repeatedly refused other services offered to him. Additionally, he claimed to have completed parenting classes, anger management classes, and substance abuse classes, but never provided documentation verifying his claims.
We have held that "a parent's demonstrated lack of willingness to participate in treatment may be considered in determining whether the state has taken active efforts." Because Darrell received several services aimed at reunifying him with Nick and refused other services, the superior court did not err in finding that DFYS made reasonable efforts at reunification.
C. The Statute Does Not Require DFYS To Make Reasonable Efforts To Reunite the Children with Extended Family.
Jena argues that DFYS had a duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify Nick not only with her, but also with her extended family. While conceding that AS 47.10.086 does not specifically require extended family reunification, Jena cites to AS 47.05.060: "The purpose of this title as it relates to children is to . . . preserve and strengthen the child's family ties unless efforts to preserve and strengthen the ties are likely to result in physical or
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|