David S. 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.

• holding that a father had failed to show that “an improved . . . performance would have made a difference in the outcome of his case”
• holding that one of the appellant’s arguments for why OCS failed to satisfy the Indian Child Welfare Act’s active efforts requirement would be reviewed only for plain error because it was not advanced at trial
• noting in dictum that \it seems most unlikely that [an OCS supervisor] would not qualify\ as an expert \given {her] high degree of experience and previous qualification as an expert\
• adopting the two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel from Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421, 425 (Alaska 1974)
• adopting the two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel from Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421, 425 (Alaska 1974)
• affirming the superior court’s CINA finding under AS 47.10.011(10), noting that because father’s “incarceration was ‘at least partially’ related to drugs, this provision is satisfied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).