 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew B. v. State3/16/2005
NOTICE Memorandum decisions of this court do not create legal precedent. See Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d). Accordingly, this memorandum decision may not be cited for any proposition of law or as an example of the proper resolution of any issue.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
No. 1207
I. INTRODUCTION
The father of three children appeals the termination of his parental rights. He challenges the superior court's finding that termination of his parental rights was in the children's best interests and argues that the children's need for contact with their African-American heritage was not adequately considered and that a guardianship should have been created instead. Because the record supports the findings of the superior court, we affirm the termination of parental rights.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Factual History
Matthew B. is the father of three children: Michelle, born in 1990, Maxwell, born in 1992, and Morgan, born in 1997. Matthew was convicted in 2003 of murder in the second degree for killing his wife, the mother of his three children. Shortly after their mother's disappearance in June 1999, Matthew placed the children with their maternal grandparents. After the mother's body was found in early July 1999, the Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services (OCS) assumed legal custody of the children and arranged for them to remain with their maternal grandparents. Matthew was arrested for the murder of his wife in April 2002, and he has remained in custody ever since.
There is substantial evidence that the mother was a repeated victim of domestic violence by Matthew prior to her murder. Matthew has also been arrested for driving while intoxicated on four occasions and has a history of substance and alcohol-related crimes. Matthew stipulated that his children were in need of aid on March 6, 2000 based upon "a history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse that places the children at substantial risk of harm." Matthew argued at the adjudication hearing that OCS did not make reasonable efforts to provide remedial programs and rehabilitative services designed to return the children to the home. He claimed he could not fully participate in the case plan's requirements for anger management and domestic violence because therapy required self-disclosure, which would compromise his right against self-incrimination. The superior court found that OCS had made reasonable efforts but ordered OCS to explore alternative therapies that would not require self-disclosure. The OCS social worker was unable to find an alternative anger management program that would not require acknowledgment of past behaviors. Matthew did begin an anger management program on his own accord, although he did not complete the course of counseling.
B. Procedural History
A petition to terminate parental rights was filed by OCS on July 27, 2001. A contested placement hearing was held in May 2002, just following Matthew's arrest for the murder of his wife in April 2002. During and prior to the hearing, Matthew encouraged OCS to consider placing the children with paternal relatives. The trial court, however, found that placement of the children with a maternal aunt and uncle, who lived out of state but were prepared to adopt the children, would be in the children's best interests. The trial court found that the children had experienced more contact with these relatives than with their paternal relatives and that the paternal relatives had made no effort to indicate that they wanted the children placed with them, despite multiple efforts by OCS to call them. The trial court did note that Matth
Page 1 2 3 4 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|