FAMILY LAW
Christopher Dodd
In Cora G. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, the supreme court held that in child in need of aid (CINA) matters, an expert witness providing a statutorily-required opinion must be offered and affirmatively accepted as a qualified expert witness. The Office of Child Services (OCS) petitioned to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father of an eight-year-old child under Alaska Stat. § 47.10.011(8) (2020), alleging that parental conduct or conditions caused the child “mental injury,” that the parents had not remedied the conduct or conditions placing him at substantial risk of harm, and that OCS made reasonable reunification efforts. At the termination trial, the superior court terminated parental rights based on the testimony of the OCS supervisor, the child’s second therapist, the mother’s therapist, an OCS caseworker, and both parents. OCS at no point expressly offered the child’s second therapist as an expert witness or asked the court to qualify her as an expert witness regarding mental injury to children. On appeal, the supreme court vacated the termination of parental rights, reasoning that since Alaska Stat. § 47.17.290(10) requires the opinion of a “qualified expert witness” for a finding of mental injury, the trial court erred by not expressly qualifying the testifying therapist as an expert witness to testify about the child’s mental injury. The supreme court further reasoned that this error was not harmless because there was no ready indication that the child’s second therapist (who held a master’s degree in marriage and family therapy) could have been qualified as an expert in diagnosing complex mental injury to a child or opining on the cause of such an injury. Vacating the termination of parental rights and remanding, the supreme court held that that in CINA matters, an expert witness providing a statutorily-required opinion must be offered and affirmatively accepted as a qualified expert witness.
