Opinion ID: 2584724
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other jurisdictions have expressed concern about applying res judicata in child welfare cases.

Text: It is a question of first impression in Alaska whether the doctrine of res judicata applies in the context of a petition to terminate parental rights. [13] As OCS and the GAL note, courts in other jurisdictions have questioned whether res judicata should be applied in cases where the state seeks to terminate parental rights, reasoning that the circumstances in a child's life are ever-changing and that the court's focus must be on the child's welfare. For example, the Utah Court of Appeals has stated that to effectively determine the best interests of a child, a court must be free from the imposition of artificial constraints that serve merely to advance the cause of judicial economy. [14] The Utah court continued: determining whether the circumstances of child abuse or abandonment justify terminating parental rights is not the type of `needless litigation' contemplated by the doctrine of res judicata. [15] The Supreme Court of South Dakota has stated that when it comes to protecting children res judicata should be cautiously applied. [16] We have stated that in a termination trial, the best interests of the child, not those of the parents, are paramount. [17] And we agree with other jurisdictions that the prospect of applying the doctrine of res judicata to CINA cases presents troubling questions. [18] But we do not decide here whether res judicata may ever be applied to child welfare cases in Alaska because, in this case, Kent did not meet his burden of showing that the elements of res judicata are satisfied.