Main Menu

Tara R. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Caitlyn Leary

In Tara R. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services, 541 P.3d 539 (Alaska 2024), the Alaska Supreme Court held that foster parents are not permitted to intervene in a case regarding termination of parental rights except under rare circumstances. (Id. at 532, 538). When Tara and Dan’s baby girl tested positive for drugs at birth, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed her in foster care with the Tates. (Id. at 533). The Tates later told OCS they were interested in adopting the baby, and Tara and Dan agreed to relinquish their parental rights. (Id.). However, the superior court could not verify the relinquishment forms because they were not dated or witnessed by an OCS representative. (Id.). At this time, OCS notified the Tates that it intended to move the child to her maternal aunt’s home, and the superior court allowed the Tates to intervene in the placement case. (Id. at 533–34). Tara then moved to withdraw her relinquishment, and the superior court also allowed the Tates to intervene and oppose Tara’s motion. (Id. at 536). But without holding another hearing, the court confirmed that Tara and Dan’s relinquishments were valid. (Id.). The superior court reasoned that the Tates’ intervention was proper because the outcome of their placement case shared questions of law or facts regarding parental relinquishment. (Id.). However, the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s decision, holding that intervention by the Tates was permitted only for the limited purpose of the placement review hearing. (Id. at 538). The Court reasoned that the placement review hearing did not share any question of law or fact in common with Tara’s withdrawal of her relinquishment. (Id. at 539). Furthermore, the Court held that the relinquishment of Tara and Dan’s parental rights violated due process because the superior court failed to provide notice or opportunity for the parents to be heard. (Id. at 540). Finally, the Court determined that the superior court failed to consider the child’s best interest before ordering termination of parental rights. (Id. at 540). As such, the Supreme Court held intervention by foster parents to argue for the termination of parental rights was not appropriate, and that foster parent intervention should be allowed only in rare exceptions. (Id. at 539).

 

 

Tara R. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

FAMILY LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Caitlyn Leary

In Tara R. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services, 541 P.3d 539 (Alaska 2024), the Alaska Supreme Court held that foster parents are not permitted to intervene in a case regarding termination of parental rights except under rare circumstances. (Id. at 532, 538). When Tara and Dan’s baby girl tested positive for drugs at birth, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed her in foster care with the Tates. (Id. at 533). The Tates later told OCS they were interested in adopting the baby, and Tara and Dan agreed to relinquish their parental rights. (Id.). However, the superior court could not verify the relinquishment forms because they were not dated or witnessed by an OCS representative. (Id.). At this time, OCS notified the Tates that it intended to move the child to her maternal aunt’s home, and the superior court allowed the Tates to intervene in the placement case. (Id. at 533–34). Tara then moved to withdraw her relinquishment, and the superior court also allowed the Tates to intervene and oppose Tara’s motion. (Id. at 536). But without holding another hearing, the court confirmed that Tara and Dan’s relinquishments were valid. (Id.). The superior court reasoned that the Tates’ intervention was proper because the outcome of their placement case shared questions of law or facts regarding parental relinquishment. (Id.). However, the Supreme Court vacated the superior court’s decision, holding that intervention by the Tates was permitted only for the limited purpose of the placement review hearing. (Id. at 538). The Court reasoned that the placement review hearing did not share any question of law or fact in common with Tara’s withdrawal of her relinquishment. (Id. at 539). Furthermore, the Court held that the relinquishment of Tara and Dan’s parental rights violated due process because the superior court failed to provide notice or opportunity for the parents to be heard. (Id. at 540). Finally, the Court determined that the superior court failed to consider the child’s best interest before ordering termination of parental rights. (Id. at 540). As such, the Supreme Court held intervention by foster parents to argue for the termination of parental rights was not appropriate, and that foster parent intervention should be allowed only in rare exceptions. (Id. at 539).