In In re Hospitalization of Danielle B.,[1] the supreme court found, upon review of an involuntary commitment petition, that sufficient evidence supported a finding that involuntary hospitalization was the least restrictive treatment option. When Danielle was evicted from a motel, she assaulted a police officer at the scene and then threatened to assault staff when Continue Reading »
In In re Hospitalization of Luciano G.,[1] the supreme court held the evidence in an involuntary commitment order sufficiently supported a finding that the detainee was likely to cause harm to himself or others. After becoming belligerent with an airport ticketing agent, Luciano G. balled his fists and refused to cooperate with an airport security Continue Reading »
In In re Naomi B.,[1] the supreme court held that all appeals of involuntary admission and compulsory taking of medication fall under the public interest exception to mootness. The two consolidated cases before the supreme court concerned the Alaska Adult Protective Services (APS) petitions for an ex parte order that would commit Naomi B. to Continue Reading »
In In re Necessity for the Hospitalization of G.L.,[1] the supreme court held that in involuntary commitment hearings the superior court must consider the condition of the patient at the time of the hearing for commitment, which can include evidence of past behavior or conditions likely to impact the patient’s mental or health or likelihood Continue Reading »
In Matter of Lucy G.,[1] the supreme court held that there was clear and convincing evidence that involuntary electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”) was in catatonic patient’s best interest and that ECT was least intrusive available treatment. Lucy G., a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, was hospitalized due to her catatonic behavior and her psychiatrist petitioned the superior Continue Reading »
In Berry v. Coulman,[1] the supreme court held that the definition of “residence of the obligor,” as that term is used in the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), means domicile. Following a 2011 court order, Berry was required to pay child support to Coulman monthly for their daughter. After Berry filed suit requesting sole Continue Reading »
In Bill S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the Supreme Court held that clear and convincing evidence of active efforts to prevent the breakup of an Indian Family under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) must include documented efforts to provide specific assistance rather than vague and overgeneralized testimony. The Office of Continue Reading »
In Brett M. v. Amanda M.,[1] the supreme court upheld the superior court’s custody decision, finding that decision did not violate the law governing custody decisions. Amanda filed for divorce from her husband, Brett. During the marriage, Amanda was the primary caregiver while Brett provided financial support. Amanda wanted to move from Juneau to Oregon Continue Reading »
In Charles S. v. State,[1] the supreme court held a father’s successful completion of substance abuse treatment and two years of sobriety remedied his substance abuse issues and thus reversed the trial court’s termination of parental rights order. In 2015, the Office of Child Services (“OCS”) took Charles and Marian S.’s three children into custody. Continue Reading »
In Dapo v. State, Office of Children’s Services,[1] the supreme court held that although the statute of repose applied to a claim for apportionment of fault, the claim may be covered by the statute’s exceptions for gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In 2000, Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed Dapo in Lucas’s foster Continue Reading »
