enumerated factors in Alaska

2025Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 382 P.3d 1154, 1167 (Alaska 2016) (“AS 47.10.088(b) only provides that ‘the court may consider’ any of the enumerated factors; it does not create a duty for the court to do so.”). 27 See AS 47.10.088(b)(3) (“harm caused to the child”). 28 See AS 47.10.088(b)(2) (“effort by the parent to remedy the conduct”); AS 47.10.088(b)(4) (“likelihood that the harmful conduct will continue”). 29 See AS 47.10.088(b)(5) (“history of conduct by or conditions created by the parent”). 30 Thea G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2025Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 382 P.3d 1154, 1167 (Alaska 2016) (“AS 47.10.088(b) only provides that ‘the court may consider’ any of the enumerated factors; it does not create a duty for the court to do so.”). 27 See AS 47.10.088(b)(3) (“harm caused to the child”). 28 See AS 47.10.088(b)(2) (“effort by the parent to remedy the conduct”); AS 47.10.088(b)(4) (“likelihood that the harmful conduct will continue”). 29 See AS 47.10.088(b)(5) (“history of conduct by or conditions created by the parent”). 30 Thea G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2025Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 291 P.3d 957, 966 (Alaska 2013).

2025Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 291 P.3d 957, 966 (Alaska 2013).

2023The supreme court therefore addressed the question of “whether the physical condition of the victim constitute[d] good cause within 58 (...continued) Sept. 6, 2006) (unpublished) (upholding court’s tolling of Rule 45 based on defense attorney’s unavailability where defendant did not challenge court’s finding that her attorney had conflicting obligations during that time period); Walluk v. State, 2007 WL 293074 , at *2 (Alaska App. Jan. 31, 2007) (unpublished) (same); Rosenquist v. State, 2007 WL 3317537 , at *2 (Alaska App. Nov. 7, 2007) (unpublished) (same); McGahan v. State, 2007 WL 4125312

2023The supreme court therefore addressed the question of “whether the physical condition of the victim constitute[d] good cause within 58 (...continued) Sept. 6, 2006) (unpublished) (upholding court’s tolling of Rule 45 based on defense attorney’s unavailability where defendant did not challenge court’s finding that her attorney had conflicting obligations during that time period); Walluk v. State, 2007 WL 293074 , at *2 (Alaska App. Jan. 31, 2007) (unpublished) (same); Rosenquist v. State, 2007 WL 3317537 , at *2 (Alaska App. Nov. 7, 2007) (unpublished) (same); McGahan v. State, 2007 WL 4125312

2023The supreme court therefore addressed the question of “whether the physical condition of the victim constitute[d] good cause within 58 (...continued) Sept. 6, 2006) (unpublished) (upholding court’s tolling of Rule 45 based on defense attorney’s unavailability where defendant did not challenge court’s finding that her attorney had conflicting obligations during that time period); Walluk v. State, 2007 WL 293074 , at *2 (Alaska App. Jan. 31, 2007) (unpublished) (same); Rosenquist v. State, 2007 WL 3317537 , at *2 (Alaska App. Nov. 7, 2007) (unpublished) (same); McGahan v. State, 2007 WL 4125312

2022Corp. of Am., 28 P.3d 269, 275 (Alaska 2001). -13­ 7612 The Legislative Council argues that these clauses “impose[] no temporal limits on the legislature’s power of appropriation” and that “[t]he governor has failed to allege a violation of an enumerated clause of the Alaska Constitution.” It argues that the challenged appropriations were permissible under the Dedicated Funds Clause because the clause only prohibits the dedication of revenues from “[t]he proceeds of any state tax or license” or specific revenue streams, whereas the appropriations at issue in this case came from the general fun

2022Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 408 P.3d 1181, 1186-87 (Alaska 2018) (discussing parents’ right to direct child’s medical care); State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 583 (Alaska 2007) (discussing parents’ right to “instill in their children . . . ‘religious beliefs’ ” (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233 (1972))). -9- 1869 in need of aid; OCS’s duty to make efforts to reunite the family; the need for OCS to prove these elements by the demanding “clear and convincing evidence” standard; and a parent’s right to be represented by counsel at public expense.20 Only if the

2022“As a general 55 Id. at 1221. 56 See id. at 1220. 57 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 364 P.3d 439, 447 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Hogg v. Raven Contractors, Inc., 134 P.3d 349, 352 (Alaska 2006)). -28- 7591 rule hearsay statements are inadmissible at trial unless they fall under an enumerated exception or exclusion . . . .”58 “Medical records kept by hospitals and doctors are often admitted under the business records exception.”59 This exception, found in Alaska Rule of Evidence 803(6), allows records that are otherwise hearsay to be admitted if five requirements are met: [F]irst, the record mus

2022Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 408 P.3d 1181, 1186-87 (Alaska 2018) (discussing parents’ right to direct child’s medical care); State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 583 (Alaska 2007) (discussing parents’ right to “instill in their children . . . ‘religious beliefs’ ” (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233 (1972))). -9- 1869 in need of aid; OCS’s duty to make efforts to reunite the family; the need for OCS to prove these elements by the demanding “clear and convincing evidence” standard; and a parent’s right to be represented by counsel at public expense.20 Only if the

2022“As a general 55 Id. at 1221. 56 See id. at 1220. 57 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 364 P.3d 439, 447 (Alaska 2015) (quoting Hogg v. Raven Contractors, Inc., 134 P.3d 349, 352 (Alaska 2006)). -28- 7591 rule hearsay statements are inadmissible at trial unless they fall under an enumerated exception or exclusion . . . .”58 “Medical records kept by hospitals and doctors are often admitted under the business records exception.”59 This exception, found in Alaska Rule of Evidence 803(6), allows records that are otherwise hearsay to be admitted if five requirements are met: [F]irst, the record mus

2022Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 408 P.3d 1181, 1186-87 (Alaska 2018) (discussing parents’ right to direct child’s medical care); State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, 171 P.3d 577, 583 (Alaska 2007) (discussing parents’ right to “instill in their children . . . ‘religious beliefs’ ” (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233 (1972))). -9- 1869 in need of aid; OCS’s duty to make efforts to reunite the family; the need for OCS to prove these elements by the demanding “clear and convincing evidence” standard; and a parent’s right to be represented by counsel at public expense.20 Only if the

2013AS 12.55.155; see Allen v. State, 56 P.3d 683, 684 (Alaska App.2002) (approving use of factors by analogy in murder sentencing). 14 .