 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jena H. v. State5/4/2005
cisions or sought review in the superior court at any time. However, Darrell and Jena waited to seek placement until after DFYS moved to terminate their rights in April 2001, and they appeal from the termination order.
We have held that "in reaching its termination decision, the superior court was not required to revisit its earlier placement decision" because termination orders render earlier placement issues moot. Furthermore, given the overriding importance of the best interests of the child, Jena and Darrell should not be able to seek reversal of Nick's now longstanding placement without considering the intervening circumstances between the time the placement decision was made and the time they chose to seek review of that decision. Thus, we conclude that the superior court could review Nick's placement in light of the circumstances at the time Darrell and Jena sought placement review, rather than at the time their initial requests for relative placement were denied.
When Darrell and Jena sought review, Nick was in an adoptive placement with Teresa. DFYS intended that Teresa would adopt Nick, and Teresa wanted to adopt the child. Thus, the relative placement preference in AS 47.14.100(e) no longer applied.
Moreover, DFYS did not abuse its discretion in deciding to continue Nick's placement with his foster mother. Teresa wanted to adopt him; Nick had lived with Teresa since June 2000 and had bonded with her and the other children in her care. Thus, the superior court did not err in approving Nick's permanent placement with Teresa.
E. Jena's and Darrell's Arguments that the Superior Court Made Inadequate Findings Are Moot
Jena and Darrell argue that the superior court made inadequate findings in approving the children's permanent placements. Darrell argues that the superior court's findings on the statutory bases for termination were inadequate.
The superior court corrected any deficiencies in its findings in its written orders following supplemental hearings held on remand in January and August 2004. The court made detailed findings on the decision not to place Nick with the Rices and on the statutory bases for finding that Nick was a child in need of aid. Therefore, the arguments that the findings were inadequate are moot.
F. Sean's Father Waived His Argument that the Superior Court Should Have Considered Less Drastic Alternatives to Termination
Sean's father, Brad, argues that courts in parental rights termination cases should be required to consider less drastic alternatives to termination. Brad waived this issue by failing to raise it in the superior court.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the termination of Darrell's and Jena's parental rights and the placement of Nick with his unrelated foster mother, Teresa.
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.
|
|