Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » New Hampshire » Supreme Court » 2006 » 2005-426, IN RE JUVENILE 2005-426
2005-426, IN RE JUVENILE 2005-426
State: New Hampshire
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 2005-426
Case Date: 11/02/2006
Preview:NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Concord District Court No. 2005-426 IN RE JUVENILE 2005-426 Argued: May 17, 2006 Opinion Issued: November 2, 2006

Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Elyse S. Alkalay, assistant attorney general, on the memorandum of law and orally), for the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families. Goldman & LeBrun, P.A., of Concord (John P. LeBrun on the brief and orally), for the father, T.D. David N. Sandberg, of Manchester, by memorandum of law, for the guardian ad litem, Court Appointed Special Advocates of New Hampshire, Inc. DUGGAN, J. The father, T.D., appeals the order of the Concord District Court (Carbon, J.) that the permanency plan for his son be "another planned permanent living arrangement" (APPLA); namely, long-term care in the son's foster home. We affirm.

The following facts are contained in the record. On June 5, 2003, the New Hampshire Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed a neglect petition in Concord District Court against the father. After an adjudicatory hearing, the court found that the father had neglected his son "by reason of . . . incarceration" because on April 17, 2002, he began serving a two and one-half to eight year prison sentence. RSA 169-C:3, XIX(c) (2002). On July 29, 2003, the district court approved DCYF's proposed dispositional order setting forth several requirements to be met by the father before reunification with his son could occur. The district court held six review hearings between October 2003 and February 2005, during which time the father remained incarcerated. After each of the first five hearings, the district court found that the father had substantially complied with the dispositional order and reunification remained the permanency plan, with termination of parental rights/adoption identified as the concurrent plan in the event that reunification could not be achieved. In its order following the August 2, 2004 review hearing, the court approved an agreement between the father and DCYF granting the father a ninety-day extension from his then anticipated release date of October 27, 2004, to comply with the outstanding dispositional order. However, due to disciplinary violations, the father was denied parole and a new parole hearing was scheduled for January 2005. In November 2004, the district court granted the father a second extension of ninety days from his newly anticipated release date in January 2005 to comply with the outstanding dispositional order. Again, the father's parole was postponed because of a disciplinary violation. In light of the second delay, the district court in its February 2005 review hearing order, indicated that in addition to termination of parental rights/adoption, APPLA would also be considered in the event that reunification could not be achieved. A permanency hearing was held on May 9, 2005, five days after the father's release. On May 12, 2005, the district court ordered that the permanency plan be long-term care with his current foster home. On June 7, 2005, the district court denied the father's motion to reconsider and this appeal followed. The father raises four issues on appeal. The four issues, however, can be distilled into one: whether the district court unsustainably exercised its discretion by failing to grant the father an extension to comply with the outstanding dispositional order and, instead, ordering APPLA with a foster family as his son's permanency plan. APPLA does not appear in New Hampshire law. Rather, APPLA is one of four permanency options set forth by the federal Adoption and Safe Families

2

Act of 1997 (ASFA), which provides the states with federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance. See 42 U.S.C.
Download 2005-426, IN RE JUVENILE 2005-426.pdf

New Hampshire Law

New Hampshire State Laws
New Hampshire Tax
New Hampshire Court
New Hampshire Labor Laws
New Hampshire Agencies

Comments

Tips