Amy S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 440 P.3d 273

Background

Child Zoltan (11) was admitted for homicidal/suicidal ideation; OCS filed an emergency CINA petition and took temporary custody. Father Jack had legal custody but refused some treatment consent; parents had a long, contentious custody history.
Probable cause hearing spanned three days; judge referenced prior domestic relations proceedings and asserted authority under AS 47.10.113 (HB 200) to consider custody-file materials.
At adjudication, OCS presented testimony and an expert report alleging parental alienation by mother Amy and "porous boundaries" harming Zoltan; Amy presented her therapist whose testimony the court discounted.
After the hearing the court issued a separate written summary describing ten years of custody-case materials it had relied on; Amy claimed she had not been given notice or an opportunity to contest those custody-file facts.
Amy appealed, arguing the court violated her procedural due process by relying on un-noticed custody-file facts (and requesting reversal or at least non-harmless-error treatment); she did not challenge the court's underlying factual findings from the adjudication record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amy preserved objection below and standard of review	Amy: she had no opportunity to object because court’s reliance on custody-file facts only became apparent after written findings	OCS: court gave ample notice of intent to consider custody history; plain-error only	Court: preserved — de novo review — Amy had no meaningful opportunity to object because specific custody-file facts first appeared in written findings
Whether AS 47.10.113 required the court to take judicial notice of past custody-file facts	Amy: statute compelled consideration of custody materials without additional notice, raising due process concerns	OCS: HB 200 authorizes considering custody requests within CINA proceedings, implying broader use of prior material	Court: statute mandates hearing custody requests within CINA cases but does not compel judicial notice of contested factual findings from prior proceedings
Whether the court may judicially notice or otherwise use prior custody proceedings	Amy: court relied on custody-file facts it did not admit at trial and did not notify her	OCS: prior records inform judge and are appropriate under HB 200	Court: courts may judicially notice only indisputable facts of prior filings; contested factual findings in prior records are generally not proper for judicial notice but may be admissible if introduced under evidence rules (e.g., admissions, impeachment, prior testimony)
Whether any due process violation was prejudicial (harmless-error analysis)	Amy: reliance on outside facts harmed her because the court discounted her expert and drew adverse inferences based on un-noticed facts	OCS: any error was harmless given the adjudication record	Court: even assuming a due process violation, Amy failed to show plausible prejudice; error was harmless and adjudication is affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Philip J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 264 P.3d 842 (Alaska 2011) (standard for due process questions in CINA appeals)
Vent v. State, 288 P.3d 752 (Alaska App. 2012) (preservation where no opportunity to object to court's reliance on material outside record)
Sarah A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 427 P.3d 771 (Alaska 2018) (Mathews balancing and prejudice requirement for due process claims in CINA cases)
Luther v. Lander, 373 P.3d 495 (Alaska 2016) (harmless error standard and Civil Rule 61 application)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial opinions from prior proceedings do not alone establish bias unless extreme)
F.T. v. State, 862 P.2d 857 (Alaska 1993) (limits on taking judicial notice of contested findings in prior records)