 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jena H. v. State5/4/2005
emotional damage to the child . . . ." In addition, Jena points to the relative placement preference in AS 47.14.100(e) as further evidence of the duty to try to reunify extended families and notes that AS 47.10.086 does not provide an exhaustive list of the efforts DFYS may have to make.
We will "decline to 'modify or extend a statute where the statute's language is clear and the legislative history reveals no ambiguity.' " Furthermore, "the plainer the meaning of the language of the statute, the more convincing any contrary legislative history must be." When a statute's meaning appears clear, "the party urging another meaning 'bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating contrary legislative intent.' "
The language of AS 47.10.086(a) evinces that reunification efforts need not be directed at the extended family: " he department shall make timely, reasonable efforts to provide family support services to the child and to the parents or guardian of the child . . . ." In addition, "family support services" are defined as "services and activities . . . to prevent removal of a child from the parental home." Moreover, although the list of duties in subsections (1) and (2) may not be exhaustive, these subsections again refer only to "the parent or guardian" in laying out to whom DFYS owes the duty of reasonable reunification efforts.
Jena fails to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating contrary legislative intent in light of the clear language of the statute. She provides no relevant legislative history nor could we find any. The policy stated in AS 47.05.060 is not only too general to carry much weight since it applies to the entire title on welfare, social services, and institutions, it also is unclear as to who is included in "family." Furthermore, AS 47.14.100 does not suggest that DFYS has a duty to reunify extended families because it prefers relative placements only for temporary and not for adoptive placements.
Because AS 47.10.086 does not require reasonable efforts at reunification with extended family members and because Jena does not argue that DFYS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children, the superior court did not err in concluding that DFYS made reasonable reunification efforts.
D. DFYS Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Placing Nick with an Unrelated Foster Parent
Darrell argues that the superior court erred when it approved Nick's placement with his unrelated foster mother, Teresa, because DFYS violated AS 47.14.100(e) and its own internal policies preferring placement of a child with relatives. Darrell contends that DFYS failed to investigate the relative placement options that he provided. Jena similarly argues that Nick should have been placed with family, the Rices, under AS 47.14.100(e).
Barring certain exceptions, AS 47.14.100 prohibits DFYS from placing a child in foster care if a relative requests placement of the child in the relative's home.
However, under AS 47.14.100(f), the preference for relative placement does not apply "to child placement for adoptive purposes." Placement for adoptive purposes, we have held, "entail placement of a child with adults who wish to adopt the child" including placement in a pre-adoptive foster home. Moreover, it is "the specific purpose of the DFYS placement, not the general purpose of the custody granted to DFYS, that is important under subsection 100(f)."
Neither Jena nor Darrell requested review of DFYS's decisions not to place Nick with their relatives until after Nick's placement with Teresa had ripened into an adoptive placement. Darrell and Jena could have sought internal DFYS review of the placement de
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.
|
|