D.M. v. State, Division of Family & Youth Services
Alaska Supreme Court
1DissentBryner, Justice
I. INTRODUCTION
The court today concludes that D.M. had no constitutional right to advance notice of the state’s intent to use her children’s CINA adjudication hearing as a springboard for termination of her parental rights; and to the extent that a right to prior notice existed on a sub-constitutional plane, the court holds that its violation was harmless. I disagree. Under the facts of this case, due process required the state to give D.M. advance notice of its decision to use the adjudication hearing as the first step toward termination. The state failed to give her adequate notice, and I…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- State v. VitaleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1985
- Donlun v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Flores v. FloresAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.