In Barry H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held that trial courts, in determining whether to allow self-representation in a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding, must apply the standard developed under McCracken v. State.[2] The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of Barry’s children after receiving reports of familial abuse.[3] OCS then sought to terminate Barry’s parental rights to children in a CINA proceeding.[4] During the proceeding, Barry requested to represent himself.[5] Basing its decision on Barry’s erratic behavior and eccentric statements, the trial court denied Barry’s request for self-representation.[6] On appeal, Barry argued that parents in CINA proceedings have a constitutional right to represent themselves.[7] The supreme court reasoned that CINA’s rule, providing that a court “shall accept a valid waiver of the right to counsel by any party if the court determines that the party understands the benefits of counsel and knowingly waives those benefits,” effectively incorporated the McCracken standard.[8] The McCracken standard requires parties to “present[ ] themselves in a way that is rational and coherent.”[9] The supreme court affirmed the trial court, finding that it did not abuse its discretion in denying Barry’s request to represent himself in CINA proceedings because the McCracken standard applies in CINA proceedings.[10]
[1] 404 P.3d 1231 (Alaska 2017).
[2] Id. at 1234.
[3] Id. at 1232.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 1233.
[6] Id. at 1235.
[7] Id. at 1233.
[8] Id. at 1234–35.
[9] Id. at 1233.
[10] Id. at 1236.
