In Steve H. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court did not clearly err in finding that a father had abandoned his child and terminating parental rights without consideration of the two-part common law test applied in other abandonment cases. Steve’s son was taken into emergency custody by the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) due to his mother’s substance abuse. Over the course of two years, Steve had had prolonged absences from his son during which he failed to regularly visit or communicate with his son’s mother or OCS. He failed to meaningfully participate in OCS’s case plan requiring him to submit drug tests, regularly visit his son, and maintain communication with OCS. As a result, the superior court concluded that Steve abandoned his son and terminated parental rights. On appeal, Steve argued that the court failed to find that his conduct satisfied the two-part common-law test that had been applied in previous child abandonment cases. The supreme court held that the supreme court did not clearly err in finding that Steve had abandoned his son and terminating parental rights. The supreme court found that because the termination of parental rights is a statutory procedure, the court properly applied the statutory rule governing abandonment and not the common-law test. The supreme court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not clearly err in finding that a father had abandoned his child and terminating parental rights without consideration of the two-part common law test applied in other abandonment cases.
[1] 444 P.3d 109 (Alaska 2019).
