In Dena M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court held it is not error to order termination of parental rights rather than guardianship if termination is in the child’s best interest. After the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed a petition to terminate parental rights, the superior court terminated the parental rights of a mother and father, based on a risk of harm and parental alcohol addiction, finding “no other realistic option.” Both parents appealed and argued that the court erred by holding termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests without considering guardianship first. The supreme court held that the superior court implicitly considered guardianship because it heard testimony about whether guardianship was in the children’s best interests and actively questioned it. Additionally, the court reasoned that agreeing with the testimony supporting termination did not mean the superior court erred. The supreme court held it was not error to find that termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests rather than guardianship.
[1] 442 P.3d 755 (Alaska 2019).
