Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or visit the child, and failure to participate in a reunification plan}. 11 . E.J.S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 754 P.2d 749, 751 (Alaska 1988). 12 . Id. (quoting D.M. v. State, 515 P.2d 1234, 1237 (Alaska 1973)). 13 . Id. See also Nada A. v. State, 660 P.2d 436, 439 (Alaska 1983) (indicating that while involuntary incarceration might not suffice to establish abandonment, an eight-month voluntary absence prior to incarceration would) legislatively overruled on other grounds, § 1, ch. 99, SLA 1998. 14 . 956 P.2d 477 (Alaska 1998). 15 . Id. at 482. See also E.J.S., 754 P.2d at 751 (affirming finding of abandonment based on father's failure to make reasonable efforts to locate and communicate with his daughter for five years); In re B.J., 530 P.2d 747, 750 (Alaska 1975) (<HOLDING>). 16 . AS 47.10.088(a)(2). 17 . AS 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection n when after release from prison the defendant was advised of visitation but only visited with his children twice and made no further efforts to be involved with them and a case worker testified that all reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the parents (B) holding that fathers failure to acquire suitable home for his children pay even nominal child support visit or correspond with his children or make efforts to secure permanent employment were sufficient to demonstrate conscious disregard of his parental obligations (C) holding that a parents responsibility to support his children is not suspended upon his incarceration and that imprisonment cannot be used as an excuse to escape parental obligations (D) holding that husbands knowledge of his obligation of support and his subsequent election to enter employment that would substantially reduce his income and make it impossible to meet his obligations would not justify reduction in support (E) recognizing that fathers parental rights were terminated based upon his incarceration and his behavior while in prison his history of substance abuse and the fact that his child support payments are in arrears
Output (English): holding that husbands knowledge of his obligation of support and his subsequent election to enter employment that would substantially reduce his income and make it impossible to meet his obligations would not justify reduction in support