Matthew H. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 397 P.3d 279

Father (Matthew H.) and mother lived with two daughters in a one-room, uninhabitable cabin with significant neglect and exposure to methamphetamine manufacture/use; both children were underweight, unvaccinated, untreated medically and mentally, and tested positive for methamphetamine on removal.
OCS removed the children in May 2013 and filed petitions to terminate parental rights in May 2014; trial was set for September 2015 after multiple continuances.
Mental-health evaluators diagnosed Matthew with antisocial/paranoid personality traits, anxiety, possible psychotic disorder, and substance use; they concluded he lacked insight, remorse, and was unlikely to respond to treatment; he did not follow through with recommended therapy.
The superior court found multiple statutory bases for CINA (medical neglect, risk of harm, domestic violence, neglect, substance abuse, mental illness), that OCS made reasonable reunification efforts, and that Matthew had failed to remedy conditions placing the child at substantial risk.
Matthew sought his public defender’s withdrawal seven weeks before trial to proceed pro se; the assigned judge denied the late request after an ex parte inquiry, finding a trial delay would harm the children’s interest in permanency. Trial proceeded with counsel; parental rights were terminated and Matthew appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Matthew)	Defendant's Argument (State/OCS)	Held
Whether Matthew remedied conditions that made child a CINA	He cleaned the property, obtained CDL and employment, and had negative meth tests during the case — thus remedied the problems	The root cause was untreated mental illness/personality disorder which he did not address; other improvements did not solve the primary risk	Court affirmed: failure to remedy mental-health condition supports termination
Whether denial of motion to allow counsel to withdraw (and thus to represent himself) violated right to self-representation	He waived right to counsel and sought to proceed pro se seven weeks before trial	Allowing late self-representation would cause delay, the case involved voluminous discovery, and children’s need for prompt permanency justified denial	Court affirmed: denial not an abuse of discretion because request was untimely and would prejudice children’s permanency interests

Christina J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 254 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2011) (standard for reviewing CINA factual findings)
Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (permanency interests weigh against delay in termination proceedings)
David S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 270 P.3d 767 (Alaska 2012) (failure to remedy any one condition supporting CINA can justify termination)
Jon S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (only one statutory basis required for CINA finding)
Devincenzi v. Wright, 882 P.2d 1263 (Alaska 1994) (standards for termination and related findings)
Rowan B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 361 P.3d 910 (Alaska 2015) (children’s best interests and need for permanency weigh heavily against delaying termination)
Dashiell R. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (stability and permanency are crucial to children’s health)
Huitt v. State, 678 P.2d 415 (Alaska App. 1984) (reasons supporting prompt trial dates and against undue continuances)