Diana P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs.

15 Citing cases

  1. Jude M. v. State

    394 P.3d 543 (Alaska 2017)   Cited 35 times
    Concluding that superior court did not err in deciding that treatment and family contact facilitated by prison counted toward "necessary active efforts"

    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).

  2. Ava T. v. State

    Supreme Court No. S-16144 (Alaska Sep. 23, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  3. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs. v. Cissy A.

    513 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2022)   Cited 13 times
    Recognizing that "children can thrive" even when parent abuses substances in the context of an ICWA termination case

    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).

  4. Louisa M. v. Ala. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs.

    Supreme Court No. S-17592 (Alaska Nov. 12, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    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.

  5. Eva H. v. State

    436 P.3d 1050 (Alaska 2019)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that ICWA expert must be able to draw connection between parental conduct and potential harm to child

    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."

  6. Julian F. v. Alaska, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs.

    Supreme Court No. S-17060 (Alaska Mar. 6, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    " (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)).

  7. Kent K. v. State

    Supreme Court No. S-15708 (Alaska Feb. 3, 2016)   Cited 7 times
    Construing requirement broadly

    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.

  8. Orin W. v. State

    No. S-18394 (Alaska Dec. 13, 2023)

    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).

  9. Sally C. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs.

    No. S-18472 (Alaska Aug. 9, 2023)

    . 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)).

  10. Trisha D. v. Ala. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs.

    Supreme Court No. S-17696 (Alaska Dec. 9, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    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).