In Re Alaska Network on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, 264 P.3d 835

ANDVSA represented the mother in a Juneau custody dispute; the indigent father was appointed OPA counsel under AS 44.21.410(a)(4).
OPA sought to intervene, move to withdraw, and convert representation to declaratory judgment; custody agreement later reached.
Superior Court questioned whether ANDVSA fits Flores' 'public agency' test; acknowledged similarity to ALSC but sought guidance.
Alaska Supreme Court granted review limited to whether ANDVSA is a 'public agency' for AS 44.21.410(a)(4).
The court held ANDVSA qualifies as a public agency under Flores, affirming the superior court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is ANDVSA a 'public agency' under Flores and AS 44.21.410(a)(4)?	OPA: ANDVSA is not a public agency.	ANDVSA: ANDVSA is a public agency due to government funding.	ANDVSA qualifies as a public agency.
Does Flores' rationale hinge on funding sources to define 'public agency'?	Flores depends on ALSC as public agency; funding distinctions matter.	Flores' fairness rationale applies; funding sources indicate public agency status.	Flores' funding-based view applies; ANDVSA deemed public agency.
Are ALSC and ANDVSA meaningfully distinguishable on governance/structure relevant to public agency status?	Differing governance argues against public agency label for ANDVSA.	Board structure differences are immaterial to public agency status.	No meaningful governance distinction; status treated similarly.

Flores v. Flores, 598 P.2d 893 (Alaska 1979) (due process right to counsel when opposing party is publicly funded in custody disputes)