Irma E. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (2013)
green
· 14 citation events
across 1 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Laura M.-J. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (2022)
Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 853-54 (Alaska 2013). 13 Ch. 99, § 30, SLA 1998. 14 AS 47.10.080(s); see also CINA Rule 19.1(b). -8- 1907 clear and convincing evidence of good cause to place Amy with someone else.
green
Celia W. and Boyd W. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS (2021)
Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 854 (Alaska 2013). -7- 1849 Our own standard of review in such cases is unsettled.
green
Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (2014)
Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 855 (Alaska 2013) (citing Tununak I, 303 P.3d at 439-40 ) (noting that in CL. v. P.C.S., 17 P.3d 769, 772 (Alaska 2001), foster care placement changed into adoptive placement when superior court terminated parents' parental rights and children's foster parents filed petitions to adopt the children). .
citing Tununak I, 303 P.3d at 439-40
green
Molly O. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (2014)
Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 853-54 (Alaska 2013). 5 Cook v. State, 312 P.3d 1072, 1088 (Alaska 2013) (Maassen, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006)); see also McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18, 24 (Alaska 1974). -16- 6877
green
Fiona M. v. State of Alaska, Department of Family and Community Services, Office of Children's Services (2023)
Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 853 (Alaska 2013) (“Alaska law has long demonstrated a preference that children who are in OCS’s custody be placed with family members.”). 27 The contact plans allowed Fiona supervised in-person visits with Jared once a week for up to 1.5 hours and phone calls three times per week.
“Alaska law has long demonstrated a preference that children who are in OCS’s custody be placed with family members.”
green
Blythe P. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS (2023)
Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 853 (Alaska 2013). 77 AS 47.14.100(e). 78 See Diego K. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.
Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 853-54 (Alaska 2013) (discussing history of AS 47.14.100(m) and concluding it required that grandmother denied placement had right to placement review hearing); Paula E., 276 P.3d at 431 (“AS 47.14.100(m) provides that grandparents are entitled to notice of the right to appeal an OCS decision not to place a child with them.”). 20 CINA Rule 19.1(e).
discussing history of AS 47.14.100(m) and concluding it required that grandmother denied placement had right to placement review hearing
green
Rose D. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS (2020)
Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 853-54 (Alaska 2013). 20 Irma E., 312 P.3d at 854 . -13- 1776 OCS contends that the court correctly found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Donna and Jack’s relationship, and therefore his conviction, continued to create a barrier to placing Adric with Donna.
green
Native Village of Tununak v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services (2014)
Servs., 312 P.3d 850, 855 (Alaska 2013) (citing Tununak I, 303 P.3d at 439-40 ) (noting that in C.L. v. P.C.S., 17 P.3d 769, 772 (Alaska 2001), foster care placement changed into adoptive placement when superior court terminated parents’ parental rights and children’s foster parents filed petitions to adopt the children). 31 The court suggests the grandmother’s participation in the adoptive placement proceeding did not rise to the level of “formally [seeking] to adopt” becau…
citing Tununak I, 303 P.3d at 439-40