Barry H. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 404 P.3d 1231

OCS removed four children from Barry and his wife in 2013 after reports of physical and sexual abuse; parental rights later became the subject of a termination proceeding.
Barry repeatedly filed pro se documents and insisted he was appearing "by special appearance," challenging the court's subject-matter and personal jurisdiction as a "natural Inupiaq man."
Barry sought to discharge his court-appointed counsel and proceed pro se; the court required a colloquy to determine whether he could represent himself.
The court found Barry’s filings and courtroom behavior—persistent jurisdictional challenges, interruptions, broadcasting confidential hearings, and surreptitious recordings—made it impossible to determine coherent trial presentation.
The court denied Barry’s request to proceed pro se under the McCracken standard and trial proceeded with counsel; the court ultimately terminated Barry’s parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parent in a CINA proceeding has a right to self-representation	Barry asserted a constitutional right to represent himself and asked to dismiss counsel	State argued trial court may apply standards (McCracken) and deny self-representation when inappropriate	Court assumed without deciding constitutional scope but applied McCracken and reviewed for abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the trial court properly applied the McCracken factors	Barry argued denial was based on disagreement with his jurisdictional views, not competence	State argued denial rested on Barry’s inability to present coherently and maintain courtroom decorum	Court held it properly applied McCracken: Barry lacked capacity to proceed rationally and coherently
Whether the court’s denial was an abuse of discretion	Barry contended refusal to permit pro se was erroneous	State contended record showed interruptions, irrational filings, and improper conduct justifying denial	Court found no abuse of discretion and commended trial court’s patience
Whether jurisdictional objections required allowing pro se status	Barry claimed the court’s disagreement with his jurisdictional theory motivated denial	State argued behavior—not mere merits of objections—supported denial	Court concluded decision was based on behavior and presentation, not on the merits of his jurisdictional claims

McCracken v. State, 518 P.2d 85 (Alaska 1974) (establishes requirement that a pro se litigant present claims in a rational and coherent manner, understand waiver of counsel, and maintain courtroom decorum)
Falcone v. State, 227 P.3d 469 (Alaska App. 2010) (upholds denial of self-representation where pleadings and behavior were irrational and disruptive)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (recognizes criminal defendants’ constitutional right to self-representation)