Sarah A. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
427 P.3d 771
Alaska2018Background
- Child Moe (age 8 at removal) was removed after reports of unexplained injuries, domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and mental illness; OCS sought termination of parental rights in Sept 2016.
- OCS alleged grounds under AS 47.10.011 for abandonment, mental injury from domestic violence, neglect, parental substance abuse, and asserted parents deceived providers and evaded UA testing.
- Trial occurred over three days (May and July 2017). Witnesses (therapist, OCS caseworkers, treating physician) described inconsistent engagement in services, deception about testing, ongoing domestic violence, and substance use issues (including marijuana and methamphetamine).
- The superior court repeatedly questioned witnesses, expressed strong views about marijuana/Suboxone and parental sobriety, and conducted internet searches and relied on knowledge from other cases during testimony.
- The superior court terminated both parents’ rights, finding Moe suffered severe mental injury from chronic domestic violence and that parental substance abuse and parental mental illness left Moe at substantial risk; mother appealed alleging judicial partiality and due process violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judicial comments and conduct created structural error requiring automatic reversal | Sarah: judge prejudged case, acted as prosecutor, relied on outside research/evidence; structural error requires remand to new judge | State: any perceived partiality was limited, record contains multiple independent grounds supporting termination, and remand would harm child's interest in permanency | Court: No structural error; limited instances of improper conduct related mainly to substance-abuse findings but other independent grounds (domestic violence, mental illness) support termination, so remand unnecessary |
| Whether judge’s questioning and outside research violated due process by depriving mother of impartial decisionmaker | Sarah: judge’s ex parte searches and argumentative tone deprived her opportunity to be heard and impaired cross-examination | State: court’s questioning is authorized (Rule 614); party failed to show plausible prejudice or how remand would change outcome | Court: Some conduct (internet search, reliance on other cases) was inappropriate and gave appearance of partiality, but mother failed to show probable prejudice that would alter result; due process not violated to the extent requiring reversal |
| Whether reliance on extrajudicial information (medical/drug-test knowledge) invalidated findings on substance abuse | Sarah: court’s factual basis included outside info it didn’t disclose, undermining credibility of substance-abuse findings | State: other admissible evidence supports substance-abuse findings and, critically, independent findings (domestic violence/mental injury) remain unchallenged | Court: Court likely abused discretion re: judicial notice/ex parte research, but error was limited to substance-abuse issue and did not affect other independent statutory grounds supporting termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for what process is due)
- Alex H. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 389 P.3d 35 (Alaska 2017) (parent must show how requested procedure would likely alter termination outcome)
- D.M. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 995 P.2d 205 (Alaska 2000) (assessing procedural safeguards and probable value in child-protection context)
- In re K.L.J., 813 P.2d 276 (Alaska 1991) (due process interests in parental rights and fair proceedings)
- In re James F., 174 P.3d 180 (Cal. 2008) (cautioning against importing criminal-structural-error doctrine wholesale into CINA cases)
- Vent v. State, 288 P.3d 752 (Alaska App. 2012) (appearance of partiality from outside research; appellate analysis considers prejudice)