JA v. State, DFYS
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASTAUGH, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
J.A. appeals the termination of his parental rights to his three Native children. We must determine whether expert testimony was sufficient under the Indian Child Welfare Act to support the trial court's conclusion that the children would likely suffer serious harm if they were returned to J.A.'s custody. We hold that the experts' testimony was sufficiently related to the facts and issues of the case even though the experts based their opinions on hypothetical seenarios and a limited review of the family's case file. And because J.A. explicitly concedes…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- L.G. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
- Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God ChurchAlaska Supreme Court · 1991
- In re J.R.B.Alaska Supreme Court · 1986
- C.J. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- Liimatta v. VestAlaska Supreme Court · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Buford v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Barbara P. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
- Marcia v. v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
- Ben M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
- Christina J. v. State, Department of Health & Social ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.