In Mariah B. v. Department of Health & Social Services, 499 P.3d 1021 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that the mother in a parental rights termination hearing did not waive her evidentiary objection by failing to raise the objection for each question during the hearsay testimony. (Id. at 1022). The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) called a supervisor as a witness at a termination hearing intended to terminate Mariah B.’s rights over her daughter. (Id.). Mariah B. objected on hearsay grounds to the supervisor’s testimony on the extent that it was based on the report of contact (ROC) notes logged by caseworkers in the OCS system and informal conversations with caseworkers. (Id. at 1022–23). The parties briefed the admissibility of the ROC notes and the supervisor’s hearsay testimony and after the briefing, the superior court stated that the testimony was temporarily deemed admissible, but the court reserved the right to rule otherwise after hearing more about the testimony. (Id. at 1023–24). OCS argues on appeal that the mother waived her objections by not objecting to each portion of the supervisor’s testimony since the superior court only made a preliminary – not final – ruling on the admissibility of the evidence under Child in Need of Aid (CINA) Rule 18(f). (Id. at 1025). The supreme court found that the mother preserved her hearsay objections because the superior court ruled definitively on the admissibility of the supervisor’s testimony. (Id.). However, because the superior court did not detail in the trial record the reasons for or limitations on the admissibility of the testimony or how the testimony influenced the court’s termination of parental rights, the case was unreviewable and therefore remanded. (Id. at 1027–28). The supreme court held that the mother in a parental rights termination hearing did not waive her evidentiary objection by failing to raise the objection for each question during the hearsay testimony. (Id. at 1022).