Alaska Supreme Court: winning a termination appeal does not reopen a closed adoption

A father who won reversal of his parental-rights termination still lost his daughter permanently, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, because he did not separately challenge the adoption decree within the one-year statutory period.

The ruling closes the child-welfare case involving Jonah B. and his daughter Serena, who was adopted by her foster family in July 2023. In a separate 2023 decision, the court had reversed the termination of Jonah's parental rights, finding that the Alaska Office of Children's Services had failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. But Jonah did not challenge the adoption decree itself. The superior court declared Serena's case moot in August 2025, and the Supreme Court affirmed that order.

The One-Year Clock

Alaska Statute 25.23.140(b) bars any challenge to an adoption decree after one year. The court held that only an appeal of the adoption decree itself stops that clock. An appeal of a separate termination order does not. Jonah had roughly six months after the December 2023 reversal to challenge the July 2023 adoption decree. He did not do so. He was appointed counsel in the adoption case in February 2024, and the one-year window closed that summer.

Justice Borghesan, writing for the court, cited the 2025 precedent In re Adoption of C.R., in which the court held that "only an appeal of an adoption decree tolls the one-year period." The policy behind the statute, the court said, is that "at some point adoptions must become final," and that allowing collateral attacks on adoption decrees at any time "threatens to unreasonably disrupt the upbringing of the adopted child."

Jonah's Arguments

Jonah argued that the one-year bar should not apply because Serena's adoptive parents had not taken custody of her, which is a statutory exception. The court rejected that argument. Court records showed the superior court had released Serena into her adoptive parents' custody in September 2023, and she was living with them when the termination reversal came down in December of that year. The adoption decree itself was not part of the record in this case, though all parties agreed the adoption occurred in July 2023.

Jonah also argued the dismissal denied him due process by effectively terminating his parental rights without a proper proceeding. The court disagreed, noting he had counsel and an opportunity to be heard in both the child-in-need-of-aid case and the adoption case, and that he was appointed separate counsel for the adoption proceeding in February 2024 after post-remand discussions about his need to potentially seek remedies there.

Jonah further argued that his attorney in the child-in-need-of-aid case provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the court's order reopening the case and by not directly challenging the adoption. The court rejected that claim as well. It found no deficiency in that counsel's performance, noting that counsel had appropriately asked the court to appoint separate counsel for the adoption case, and that it was reasonable to expect adoption counsel to pursue any direct challenge to the decree.