Tea ex rel. A.T. v. State

278 P.3d 1262 (Alaska 2012) · Alaska Supreme Court · June 22, 2012

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that the Office of Children's Services could obtain and hold children's Permanent Fund Dividends in trust after obtaining legal custody. The court interpreted 15 AAC 23.223(i) as providing two independent methods for OCS to claim a child's dividend: filing an original application or redirecting an existing application. The court reversed the superior court's order requiring OCS to release the dividends to the children's mother.

Court
Alaska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Winfree, Justice; Carpeneti; Fabe; Stowers; Winfree
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Decision date
June 22, 2012
Procedural posture
The Alaska Supreme Court granted the guardian ad litem's petition for review of a superior court order requiring the Office of Children's Services to release the children's Permanent Fund Dividends to their mother.
Standard of review
The court independently interpreted the regulation because the agency that promulgated it was not a party and had not offered an interpretation. Ordinarily, the court gives some deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation under the reasonable-basis standard.
Precedential value
Published precedential Alaska Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Guardian ad litem v. Tea, mother of A.T., State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's Services
Disposition
reversed

Topics

statutory interpretationadministrative lawjudicial review of agency actiontrust administrationappellate procedure

Practice areas

administrative lawchild welfarefamily lawtrustsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 15 AAC 23.223(i) requires OCS to have had custody of a child on December 31 of the qualifying year before OCS may redirect an existing Permanent Fund Dividend application.
  2. Whether OCS complied with 15 AAC 23.223(i) by submitting change-of-address forms identifying OCS as the children's new address rather than separately submitting the custody order.
  3. Whether OCS was legally entitled to receive and hold the children's Permanent Fund Dividends in trust.

Holdings

  1. 15 AAC 23.223(i) creates two independent methods for OCS to claim a child's Permanent Fund Dividend: filing an original application or redirecting an existing application after obtaining legal custody before the Department pays the dividend. The regulation's December 31 custody requirement for an original OCS application does not apply to the redirection procedure.
  2. OCS complied with 15 AAC 23.223(i), and the superior court erred by ordering release of the dividends to the mother based on OCS's failure to provide the custody order directly to the Department.
  3. OCS was legally entitled to obtain and hold the children's Permanent Fund Dividends in trust after obtaining custody of the children.

Key quotations

We therefore hold that, based on its plain meaning, 15 AAC 23.223(i) creates two independent methods for OCS to claim a child's dividend, either: (1) filing an original application; or (2) redirecting an existing application. (1266)
There was and could be no dispute that OCS actually was entitled to redirect and hold the children's dividends, regardless of the information provided to the Department. (1267)

Factual background

Twin children were born in August 2009, and OCS obtained temporary and then physical custody after filing a child-in-need-of-aid petition. OCS notified the Department of Revenue that it had custody, received the children's Permanent Fund Dividends, and placed them in trust. After both parents relinquished their parental rights, the mother sought an order requiring OCS to release the dividends to her, but the superior court's custody order established that OCS had custody when the dividends were redirected.

Procedural history

OCS obtained custody of the twins, received their Permanent Fund Dividends, and placed the dividends in trust. After the parents relinquished their parental rights and before the superior court entered the termination order, the mother moved for release of the dividends. The superior court ordered release after finding that OCS had not provided sufficient evidence of the change in legal custody under the governing regulation. The guardian ad litem's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the Alaska Supreme Court granted review.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…