Source: http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-7221.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:53:28+00:00

Document:
Appellant.  No appearance by Native Village of Tuluksak.
No appearance by Guardian Ad Litem.
superior court's order dismissing the petition and remand for further proceedings.
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Indian culture."                      Id.  § 1902.
after the temporary custody hearing.
2          Pseudonyms are used to protect the parties' privacy.
membership in an Indian tribe and the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.
for the tribe entered an appearance.
permanency hearing was scheduled for October 1, 2015.
emotional or physical damage to the child."
scheduled a CINA Rule 19.1(c) review hearing for April 22.
had jurisdiction over Natalie because the petition to extend custody was untimely.
to the expiration of the existing disposition order."
hearings and the continued litigation regarding removal, the issue of custody was tolled.
the motion to dismiss on May 19, 2016.
. . . in [a village].                                                           The parents reside in [another village]. . . .
briefing and review of the case law that it could not retroactively extend a custody order.
simple as that folks, I don't think it's for the good of the child at all."
2015 removal order; Michelle has not joined his cross-appeal.
Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 3 P.3d 342, 344 (Alaska 2000)).
according to the rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.
the peculiar and appropriate meaning.").
931 P.2d 407, 408 n.3 (Alaska 1997)).
11         Id. (quoting Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n.6 (Alaska 1979)).
2002) (citing L.G ., 14 P.3d at 949-50).
determination is a legal question that we review de novo.
issues that were not raised in the trial court for plain error."
distinct from the custody granted to OCS in a disposition order.
of a court to hear and decide a particular type of case."
disposition order granting OCS custody or supervision.
Servs., 254 P.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Alaska 2011).
309 P.3d 1262, 1267 (Alaska 2013).
16          Hawkins v. Attatayuk, 322 P.3d 891, 894 (Alaska 2014) (quoting Nw. Med.
Imaging, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Revenue, 151 P.3d 434, 438 (Alaska 2006)).
to hear and decide matters regarding the child.
with the child's best interests.
Alaska Statute 47.10.010 introduces Alaska's child protection framework.
17             66 P.3d 1, 9 (Alaska 2003).
legislature has defined what it means to be a "child in need of aid."
jurisdiction of the court under AS 47.10.010 and 47.10.011."
courts shall be prescribed by law.").
whether   probable   cause   exists   for   believing   the   child   to   be   a   child  in   need   of   aid.
the child reaches 19 years of age."
the child continues to be a child in need of aid . . . .
court's jurisdiction in a CINA proceeding.
need  of  aid'  (CINA)  under  AS  47.10.010(a)(2)."  (footnotes  omitted)).
interests, as was seemingly done in this case.
(Alaska 2007) ("[W]e may not read into a statute that which is not there . . . .").
31               66  P.3d   1,  9  (2003).
newly  filed  petition."                       But  the  parents'  argument  finds  no  support  in  our  opinion.
authority over the child, was never lost.
is required in all CINA proceedings to consider and act in the child's best interests.
child who has been adjudicated in need of aid is not dependent upon a disposition order.
detrimental, which its comments made clear it believed was the case.
41           AS  47.10.005;  see  also  CINA  Rule   1(c).
disposition order is found in the court rule; there is no statute that sets such a deadline.
with the CINA court rules pursuant to Alaska Civil Rule 95.
to the extent of the inconsistency.").
(quoting Alaska Const. art. IV, § 15)).
46            Alaska R. Civ. P. 6(b); see also CINA Rule 1(e), (g).
vacated, and we remand for further proceedings.
Morris has appealed the superior court's November 2015 removal order.
an issue has not been preserved on appeal.
that the law favors deciding cases on their merits.").
compliance with the criminal rules of procedure.
findings were necessary under CINA Rule 17(d)(2) rather than under ICWA.
thus clearly inadequate support for the court's order.
50         25  U.S.C.  §   1912(e)  (2012);  see  also  CINA  Rule   10  &   10.1(b).
51         25  U.S.C.  §   1903(1)(i).
uncontested does not mean that it must be granted as a matter of right."
any supporting materials in order to determine if granting the motion is warranted."
entitle [the defendant] to automatic suppression of the                                                                           evidence.");  Bauman v. State, Div.
not met burden of showing there were no issues of material fact).
v. Johnson, 525 P.2d 532, 534-35 (Alaska 1974)).
threat of such danger                        .
superior court to conduct further proceedings to ensure Natalie's safety.
55            25  U.S.C.  §   1920  (emphasis  added).
56            CINA  Rule  20(c)  (emphasis  added).

References: § 1902
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 §   1912
 §   1903
 v. 

v. 
 §   1920