Opinion ID: 2520807
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alaska Statute 47.10.088(a)(1)(A): Amanda was a child in need of aid on the bases of substantial risk of future physical harm and future mental harm.

Text: The superior court found that Amanda had been subjected to conditions causing her to be a child in need of aid under AS 47.10.011. Martin contests the superior court's findings. [14]
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.
Alaska Statute 47.10.011(8) provides in part that a child may be found in need of aid if conduct by or conditions created by the parent ... have ... (B) placed the child at substantial risk of mental injury as a result of (i) a pattern of rejecting, terrorizing, ignoring, isolating, or corrupting behavior that would, if continued, result in mental injury. The superior court found that the pattern of domestic violence described above constituted such terrorizing behavior that would, if continued, result in mental injury to [Amanda]. Martin's arguments regarding this subsection are essentially the same ones that he raises above: that Hannah is not a reliable witness, that his acts have never injured Amanda herself, and that his prior acts have not yet placed Amanda at risk. The statute itself directs the court to the question of whether the child would be mentally injured if the behavior is continued, thereby contemplating an analysis of future harm similar to that in subsection .011(6). As discussed above, the trial court's factual findings were amply supported by the record, and we agree that Martin's acts constitute terrorizing behavior. We have previously held that witnessing domestic violence is mentally harmful to children. [20] There was clear and convincing evidence that Martin's acts toward Hannah create a significant risk of mental injury to Amanda if continued.