Main Menu

Penn P. v. Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services

FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Allyson Barkley

In Penn P. v. Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services, 522 P.3d 659 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court reaffirmed the existing standard for allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in parental rights termination cases. (Id. at 670). Penn P. and June were the parents of Ruby. (Id. at 661). Immediately after Ruby’s birth, June tested positive for methamphetamines, beginning a series of deliberations among Penn, June, and social services caseworkers. (Id. at 661–62). Ruby was placed in a foster home after both parents admitted to frequent drug use, June admitted to struggles with mental illness, and Penn admitted to a history of sexual abuse. (Id.). Ultimately, after months of continued drug use and missed appointments, June agreed to the termination of her parental rights while Penn continued to contest his case. (Id. at 663–64). After the trial court terminated Penn’s parental rights, he appealed, arguing that (1) the court had committed harmful error in relying on June’s urinalysis, (2) Penn’s attorney’s failure to object to admission of certain evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the court should amend its ineffective assistance of counsel rule to remand such claims to the superior court as long as the opening brief establishes a prima facie case. (Id. at 664, 666, 668). The supreme court found the error to be harmless and rejected the claim to ineffective assistance of counsel.  (Id. at 664, 666). Then, the court addressed Penn’s proposed standard for ineffective assistance of counsel review. (Id. at 668). The court noted the value of new counsel presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to an appellate court. (Id. at 669). Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of expediency in parental rights termination cases, arguing that the impact on the parents’ rights and the uncertainty in the child’s life weigh in favor of allowing direct appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in these particular cases. (Id. at 670). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court declined to alter the standards for assessing allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in parental rights termination cases. (Id.).

Penn P. v. Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services

FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Allyson Barkley

In Penn P. v. Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services, 522 P.3d 659 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court reaffirmed the existing standard for allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in parental rights termination cases. (Id. at 670). Penn P. and June were the parents of Ruby. (Id. at 661). Immediately after Ruby’s birth, June tested positive for methamphetamines, beginning a series of deliberations among Penn, June, and social services caseworkers. (Id. at 661–62). Ruby was placed in a foster home after both parents admitted to frequent drug use, June admitted to struggles with mental illness, and Penn admitted to a history of sexual abuse. (Id.). Ultimately, after months of continued drug use and missed appointments, June agreed to the termination of her parental rights while Penn continued to contest his case. (Id. at 663–64). After the trial court terminated Penn’s parental rights, he appealed, arguing that (1) the court had committed harmful error in relying on June’s urinalysis, (2) Penn’s attorney’s failure to object to admission of certain evidence constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) the court should amend its ineffective assistance of counsel rule to remand such claims to the superior court as long as the opening brief establishes a prima facie case. (Id. at 664, 666, 668). The supreme court found the error to be harmless and rejected the claim to ineffective assistance of counsel.  (Id. at 664, 666). Then, the court addressed Penn’s proposed standard for ineffective assistance of counsel review. (Id. at 668). The court noted the value of new counsel presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to an appellate court. (Id. at 669). Furthermore, the court emphasized the importance of expediency in parental rights termination cases, arguing that the impact on the parents’ rights and the uncertainty in the child’s life weigh in favor of allowing direct appeal for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in these particular cases. (Id. at 670). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court declined to alter the standards for assessing allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel in parental rights termination cases. (Id.).