In Amy S. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that when a party’s due process rights are violated, a failure by that party to make a plausible claim of prejudice resulting from that violation requires a finding of harmless error. The Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed an emergency petition for a child in need of aid (CINA) adjudication regarding Ms. S.’s child. After the CINA hearing, the superior court found in favor of OCS. Subsequently, Ms. S. filed a motion requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the superior court’s decision. The superior court issued a summary of factual findings which did not cite facts discussed at the CINA hearing, but did recount facts from previous proceedings involving Ms. S.’s child. Ms. S appealed, arguing the superior court’s consideration of facts from previous proceedings violated her due process rights. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that, even assuming that the consideration of facts from previous proceedings violated Ms. S.’s due process rights, any error was harmless because Ms. S. failed to make a plausible claim of prejudice. The court found found fatal to a plausible claims Ms. S.’s failure to explain how the outcome of the case might have changed if the lower court had respected her due process rights. The supreme court affirmed, holding that that when a party’s due process rights are violated, a failure by that party to make a plausible claim of prejudice resulting from that violation requires a finding of harmless error .
[1] 440 P.3d 273 (Alaska 2019).
