FAMILY LAW
Melissa English
In State, Department of Health & Social Services v. Dara S., the supreme court held that the superior court did not clearly err by reinstating a mother’s parental rights, finding that this was in the best interest of the child. In a previous decision, the supreme court held that a superior court is able to vacate an order involuntarily terminating a parent’s parental rights if the child has not been adopted and the parent shows that reinstatement of their parental rights is in the best interest of the child, including that they can provide for the moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the child. Here, the superior court reinstated a mother’s parental rights after finding that she was best able to provide for her child’s emotional well-being. In doing so, the superior court discounted the credibility of testimony by an Office of Children’s Services (OCS) caseworker. The superior court made findings of fact that the child lived with his mother for the first three years of his life and that his caregivers were unable to provide for his emotional well-being. On appeal, OCS argued that the superior court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous and therefore that the conclusion that reinstating the mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child was clearly erroneous as well. The supreme court reviewed the superior court’s decision for clear error, refusing to overturn the superior court’s factual findings based on conflicting evidence or re-weighing the evidence. The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the superior court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. The court further reasoned that the superior court was entitled to discount the caseworker and psychologist’s testimony and refused to make new credibility determinations. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that the superior court did not clearly err in holding that reinstating a mother’s parental rights was in the best interest of the child.
