See 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1)(i).Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 547 (Alaska 2015) (first citing 25 U.S.C. § 1912 ; then citing E.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986, 992 (Alaska 2002) ).Marcia V. v. State, 201 P.3d 496, 508 (Alaska 2009).
We have required trial courts to apply a two-pronged test when assessing the required finding of harm; this test requires evidence that (1) the parent's conduct is likely to seriously harm the child, and (2) the parent's conduct is unlikely to change. Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 546 (Alaska 2015). The long period of time that the mother abused substances and her minimization of her substance abuse problem leads this Court to conclude that there is a strong likelihood that the harmful conduct will continue to exist.
This evidentiary burden requires OCS to show that the parent's conduct is likely to harm the child and that the parent's conduct is unlikely to change. Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs. , 355 P.3d 541, 546 (Alaska 2015). Other requirements are detailed in CINA Rule 18(c).
CINA Rule 18(c)(4); see also 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e) (2018). Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 546 (Alaska 2015). 1. The ICWA requirement of qualified expert testimony was satisfied.
But when expert testimony is required in order to support termination in ICWA cases, trial courts may rely on reasonable inferences only from the testimony of witnesses who are qualified to testify on the subject.Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs. , 355 P.3d 541, 548 (Alaska 2015). There were no challenges to the qualifications of the expert witnesses in Diana P. ; both testified without objection "as experts in the diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse and substance-abuse-related disorders."
" (Alteration in original.) 212 P.3d 756, 761 (Alaska 2009) (citing E.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986, 989 (Alaska 2002)); accord Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 546 (Alaska 2015). 291 P.3d 957, 962 (Alaska 2013) (citing Christina J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 254 P.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Alaska 2011)).
Although it may be best practice for expert testimony to address both prongs of the "serious emotional or physical damage to the child" test, we conclude that it is not required when the basis for termination of parental rights is culturally neutral: so long as qualified expert testimony directly supports one prong of the substantial harm requirement and inferentially supports the other prong, the statutory requirements will be satisfied.Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 546-47 (Alaska 2015) (alteration in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting Chloe W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 336 P.3d 1258, 1270 (Alaska 2014); Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 201 P.3d 496, 508 (Alaska 2009)). 1. Dr. Rose qualified as an ICWA expert.
25 U.S.C. § 1912(f); CINA Rule 18(c)(4). Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 546 (Alaska 2015). State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs. v. Cissy A., 513 P.3d 999, 1010, 1015 (Alaska 2022).
. Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 545-47 (Alaska 2015). Walker E. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 480 P.3d 598, 610 (Alaska 2021) (alterations in original) (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 23.121(d)).
This requires evidence that the parent's conduct is likely to harm the child and that the parent's conduct is unlikely to change. Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 355 P.3d 541, 546 (Alaska 2015). See 25 C.F.R. § 23.122(a) (2019).