Cynthia W. v. Department of Health & Social Services

FAMILY LAW

Melissa Gustafson

In Cynthia W. v. Department of Health & Social Services, 497 P.3d 981 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska’s child-in-need-of-aid (CINA) laws for determining if a child is at substantial risk of sexual abuse do not require the superior court to distinguish a sexual abuse indictment from a conviction or make a finding that the underlying conduct of the indictment occurred. (Id. at 983). Office of Children’s Services (OCS) became aware that Cynthia W. had left her teen daughter in the custody of Joel, Cynthia’s boyfriend who was indicted by a grand jury on one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. (Id.). OCS, upon hearing that Cynthia was living with Joel, attempted to remove the teen from the home and the superior court found that under AS 47.10.011(7), the teen was a child in need of aid based on substantial risk of sexual abuse. (Id. at 983–84). The supreme court, looking at the statutory language, rejected Cynthia’s argument that the court is required to weigh the probative value of an indictment in determining the statutory presumption outlined in AS 47.10.011(7). (Id. at 985). The court reasoned that the text does not distinguish between those convicted of a sex offense, those registered as a sex offender, and those that are under investigation for a sexual offense. (Id. at 984–85). The supreme court also rejected OCS’s argument that once the statutory presumption is established, the burden of proof then shifts to the parents to prove that the child isn’t at risk. (Id. at 985). The court reasoned that if OCS introduces sufficient evidence to establish the presumption under AS 47.10.011(7) and the parent sufficiently rebuts this evidence, it is for the superior court to weigh all the evidence and determine if the child is at substantial risk of danger. (Id.). The supreme court held that Alaska’s child-in-need-of-aid (CINA) laws for determining if a child is at substantial risk of sexual abuse do not require the superior court to distinguish a sexual abuse indictment from a conviction or make a finding that the underlying conduct of the indictment occurred. (Id. at 983).

Cynthia W. v. Department of Health & Social Services

FAMILY LAW

Melissa Gustafson

In Cynthia W. v. Department of Health & Social Services, 497 P.3d 981 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that Alaska’s child-in-need-of-aid (CINA) laws for determining if a child is at substantial risk of sexual abuse do not require the superior court to distinguish a sexual abuse indictment from a conviction or make a finding that the underlying conduct of the indictment occurred. (Id. at 983). Office of Children’s Services (OCS) became aware that Cynthia W. had left her teen daughter in the custody of Joel, Cynthia’s boyfriend who was indicted by a grand jury on one count of sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree. (Id.). OCS, upon hearing that Cynthia was living with Joel, attempted to remove the teen from the home and the superior court found that under AS 47.10.011(7), the teen was a child in need of aid based on substantial risk of sexual abuse. (Id. at 983–84). The supreme court, looking at the statutory language, rejected Cynthia’s argument that the court is required to weigh the probative value of an indictment in determining the statutory presumption outlined in AS 47.10.011(7). (Id. at 985). The court reasoned that the text does not distinguish between those convicted of a sex offense, those registered as a sex offender, and those that are under investigation for a sexual offense. (Id. at 984–85). The supreme court also rejected OCS’s argument that once the statutory presumption is established, the burden of proof then shifts to the parents to prove that the child isn’t at risk. (Id. at 985). The court reasoned that if OCS introduces sufficient evidence to establish the presumption under AS 47.10.011(7) and the parent sufficiently rebuts this evidence, it is for the superior court to weigh all the evidence and determine if the child is at substantial risk of danger. (Id.). The supreme court held that Alaska’s child-in-need-of-aid (CINA) laws for determining if a child is at substantial risk of sexual abuse do not require the superior court to distinguish a sexual abuse indictment from a conviction or make a finding that the underlying conduct of the indictment occurred. (Id. at 983).