Court Opinion

ID: 9797802
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:29:35.057942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:42.087559
License: Public Domain

EASTAUGH, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result the court reaches and the reasoning it employs, because appellant has not demonstrated the existence of any California decree which satisfies the definition of “child custody determination” contained in AS 25.30.909(3). The order appointing Laura Iverson as Timothy’s guardian did not otherwise award legal or physical custody of the child to any other person or entity, or create in the abstract a guardianship that would survive the death of the guardian. It is therefore correct to conclude that Laura Iverson’s death terminated the order that made her Timothy’s guardian, the only order which appellant has brought to our attention in arguing that Alaska has no jurisdiction.
Finally, the public defender’s failure to raise the jurisdictional issues now argued on appeal is likewise insufficient for an ineffective assistance claim. As we stated in Risher, “[ljawyers may display a wide spectrum of ability and still have their performance fall within the range of competence displayed by one of ordinary training and skill.”43 While we doubt that this standard was breached here, we need not decide the issue, for Risher’s second requirement for an ineffective assistance claim is a showing that “the lack of competency contributed” to the adverse result.44 Blake admits that “it is highly unlikely the end result for [Blake] would have been different under California law” had the court ruled that Alaska lacked subject matter jurisdiction to terminate her parental rights. Thus, Blake surrendered the second prong of her ineffective assistance claim, and cannot prevail upon it. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in declining to appoint new counsel for Blake.
C. The Superior Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Failing To Grant Blake’s Requests for Continuances.
Following the trial court’s suggestion, Blake requested a continuance at the outset of the February 2000 CINA adjudication trial to give herself more time to locate witnesses. The state requested that it go forward with testimony from three witnesses already scheduled to participate that day. The trial court granted this request, and decided to hold the continuance issue in abeyance over the weekend, stating that it would resume consideration of the issue if Blake was unable to locate her witnesses in that time. Blake did not renew her continuance request the next week. She now argues it was error not to grant her initial request, but does not explain why she failed to renew her request as suggested by the court. The actions undertaken by the superior court were not an abuse of discretion.
Blake also requested a continuance at a November 3, 2000 status conference, three days before the termination trial was scheduled to begin. Blake explained that she

. Id. at 425.

. Risher, 523 P.2d at 424.