Opinion ID: 2520807
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: AS 47.10.011(6): substantial risk of physical harm

Text: The trial court found that Amanda was a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011(6), which provides in part that a child may be found to be in need of aid if the child has suffered substantial physical harm, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer substantial physical harm, as a result of conduct by or conditions created by the child's parent. Martin first argues that the trial court's holding was erroneous because he has never caused physical harm to Amanda in the past. But the trial court's ruling was specifically directed to the likelihood of future harm under AS 47.10.011(6); the state is not required to wait to intervene until a child has suffered actual harm. [15] Martin responds that the finding that he poses a risk of future harm is erroneous because his violent tendencies are not a condition created by him. We disagree. We analyze the totality of the State's evidence in assessing the risk of future physical harm to a child. [16] Looking at all of the evidence, it is clear that Martin has violent tendencies that pose a risk of future harm to Amanda. Martin kneed Hannah in the abdomen and shot her in the buttock while she was pregnant, and repeatedly threatened Hannah, her possessions, and her pets with guns. While in jail, he continued his threatening and controlling behavior toward Hannah, and also threatened the social worker. Martin himself admitted that he entered into confrontations with other prisoners while in jail, and that his attitude and disciplinary history in jail was poor, but he argues that he never directed violence at Amanda. We considered a similar argument in In re J.A., [17] where a parent argued that the previous violence between the parents had never placed the child in danger. We rejected that argument, noting that [t]he violent behavior of [the parents] need not have been directed at [the child] to place him in physical danger. As another court has acknowledged, [m]any violent acts could be committed in the child's presence, but not directed toward the child, in such a manner as to actually endanger the child's physical well-being. [18] Martin's reckless use of firearms, including shooting Hannah when she was pregnant with Amanda, shows that he would pose a significant risk of harm to Amanda in the future. Finally, and contrary to Martin's argument, it is irrelevant that much of the testimony comes solely from Hannah, because the trial court found her to be a credible witness, and we generally defer to the trial court on the issue of witness credibility. [19] We affirm the finding of the superior court.