Alaska Supreme Court upholds termination of Valdez mother's parental rights

The Alaska Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the termination of a Valdez mother's parental rights. Her son was three when the state took him from the home, and he had been in custody more than two and a half years by the time the termination trial ended.

The court used pseudonyms for the family. Victoria W. appealed a September 2025 order from Valdez Superior Court Judge Rachel Ahrens, entered after a trial that ran across several days between March and June 2025. The Office of Children's Services had petitioned to end both parents' rights in August 2024. Justice Dario Borghesan wrote for the court.

The justices narrowed the grounds. Ahrens' original order found the boy, called Milo in the opinion, in need of aid because he had been abandoned; a later order on reconsideration added a finding of neglect. The Supreme Court affirmed on neglect alone and said it did not need to reach abandonment, cautioning that terminating a parent's rights on a ground the petition never alleged may violate due process. The justices also held that Ahrens erred by ruling on reconsideration after the appeal had already been filed, but found the error harmless.

OCS opened the case in November 2022, after a report that the boy's father was too drunk to stand and the child was cold, filthy and unsupervised in a trailer heated by an unshielded wood stove. Relatives had already taken him to his grandparents. His mother had no contact with him for about two months. His father died before the trial concluded.

Victoria testified that she had left Milo with his father to get away from domestic violence. The court held that the question before it was her decision to leave the boy without adequate care, and that she had not resolved the problems underlying it.

Her case plan required random drug testing, a combined mental health and substance use evaluation, and regular visits. She submitted one test, never obtained the evaluation and declined counseling. At the time of trial she was living in a home covered into 2026 by the father's Alaska Housing Finance Corporation voucher.

The boy's maternal grandmother testified that his parents missed more than 80 visits, and called the visitation a "rollercoaster" for him, though she said the visits that did happen went well under supervision. Caseworkers described Victoria as attentive during visits and her bond with Milo as largely healthy. Her attendance improved through 2025. Asked why she had missed so many, she pointed to transportation and said she was "always on somebody else's schedule," noting that she often drove friends to the airport. The court did not find that persuasive.

Ahrens also found that OCS had made reasonable efforts toward reunification and that ending the relationship served Milo's interests, given how long he had been in custody and the stability his grandparents offered.

Terminations do get overturned. In May the Supreme Court reversed one in Jace v. State, finding OCS had not done enough. Victoria did not raise the agency's efforts on appeal.