Opinion ID: 2637527
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Misapplication of Facts

Text: Erica further alleges that the superior court failed to separately consider the evidence as it related to each child and that it applied evidence concerning individual children to both. Specifically, Erica challenges a finding as to Kevin in the superior court's December 1999 temporary commitment order that, according to Erica, was based on evidence relating only to Amy. Erica also argues that because Dr. Lazur's evaluation of her parenting skills focused only on her relationship with Amy, the evaluation had no bearing on her ability to parent Kevin. But Erica's own counsel drafted the final findings in the temporary commitment order; and, in any event, the termination order now renders those findings moot. Furthermore, as already discussed above, psychological testimony did not play a crucial role in the trial court's rulingparticularly as to Kevin, since neither of Erica's parents was willing to assume primary custody of Kevin. In short, Erica's claims are meritless.