Diana P. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a superior court’s substantial harm finding presents a mixed question of fact and law and that we review the superior court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• “While ICWA requires that the evidence supporting [the finding that continued custody is likely to cause serious harm to the child] include expert testimony, it does not ... require that the expert testimony provide the sole basis for the court’s conclusion.”
• “While ICWA requires that the evidence supporting [the finding that continued custody is likely to cause serious harm to the child] include expert testimony, it does not . . . require that the expert testimony provide the sole basis for the court’s conclusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).