Pam R. 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 that the trial court had “heard conflicting testimony, made credibility determinations, [and] weighed the evidence” before concluding that a grandmother was not an Indian custodian (footnote omitted)
• holding that a grandmother was not an Indian custodian even though she had spent a “great deal of time” with the children given the parents’ control over decisionmaking and the grandmother’s lack of consistent or exclusive care
• deferring to the trial court’s fact finding that such factors tipped the scale against finding that a grandmother was an Indian custodian
• considering a variety of factors before concluding that a grandmother was not an Indian custodian
• noting no ICWA authority but noting some relevant non-ICWA state law authority
• “[W]e will not reweigh evidence when the record provides clear support for the trial court’s ruling.” (citing D.M. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 995 P.2d 205, 214 (Alaska 2000))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).