Carl N. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding father failed to remedy because expert testified that it would be at least two years until reunification, child had been in foster care for over three years, and child needed stability and could not afford to wait
• concluding father failed to remedy because expert testified that it would be at least two years until reunification, child had been in foster care for over three years, and child needed stability and could not afford to wait
• affirming a finding of likelihood of harm in part by relying on the parent’s failure to remedy
• affirming a finding of likelihood of harm in part by relying on the parent’s failure to remedy
• affirming a finding of likelihood of harm in part by relying on the parent's failure to remedy
• \Whether the superior court's findings comport with the requirements of ICWA or the CINA statutes and rules is a question of law that we review de novo.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).