Summary
The Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the termination of Jan M.'s parental rights to her daughter, holding that Gilbert M., the child's grandfather, lacked standing to challenge the termination of Jan's rights. The court further held that Gilbert's remaining claims concerning placement and visitation were moot because his lengthy incarceration prevented him from resuming care of the child. The court declined to reach challenges concerning ICWA active efforts and expert testimony.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Gilbert had standing to appeal the termination of Jan M.'s parental rights.
- Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act independently gave Gilbert standing to appeal.
- Whether Gilbert's challenges to the finding that placement with him would harm Belinda and to the denial of court-ordered visitation were moot because of his incarceration.
- Whether the court should reach Gilbert's challenge to the evidentiary standard for proving active efforts and his challenge to the expert testimony.
Holdings
- Gilbert lacked standing to challenge the termination of Jan's parental rights because he had no interest adversely affected by that termination and could not assert Jan's rights as a third party.
- ICWA did not give Gilbert standing to appeal because the superior court never determined that he was Belinda's Indian custodian and, due to his incarceration, he could no longer claim Indian-custodian status based on temporary physical care and custody.
- Gilbert's remaining claims were moot because his incarceration made it impossible for him to resume caring for Belinda or obtain relief premised on restoration of Indian-custodian status.
Key quotations
“The "basic requirement" for standing in Alaska courts "is adversity."” (586)
“A decision that would have no effect on the parties before the court is purely advisory and therefore the appeal is nonjusticiable.” (588)
“A matter is moot "if it has lost its character as a present, live controversy," or "if the party bringing the action would not be entitled to any relief even if [it] prevail[s]."” (589)
Factual background
Belinda T. was an Indian child affiliated with the Chitina Traditional Indian Village. Her mother, Jan M., struggled with alcohol and drug use and failed to complete treatment, while Belinda's grandfather, Gilbert M., had cared for her but was arrested and convicted of numerous felonies involving guns and drugs and received a lengthy prison sentence. The state removed Belinda in 2000, and she was eventually adopted by a tribally approved family in 2005. Gilbert remained incarcerated and was unlikely to be released before Belinda reached adulthood.
Procedural history
The superior court terminated Jan M.'s parental rights after finding that Belinda was a child in need of aid, Jan had failed to remedy the conditions causing that status, active efforts had been made, and termination was in Belinda's best interests. The court also found that continued custody by Jan or Gilbert was likely to cause serious emotional or physical damage and declined to prescribe specific visitation in the adoption decree. Belinda was later adopted by a tribally approved family. The Alaska Supreme Court held that Gilbert lacked standing to challenge termination of Jan's rights and that his remaining claims were moot because of his incarceration, then affirmed.