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 had spent more than two and a half years in state custody after being taken from the home at age three.

The court used pseudonyms for the family. The mother, Victoria W., appealed a September 2025 order issued by Valdez Superior Court Judge Rachel Ahrens after a termination trial held over multiple days between March and June 2025. The Office of Children's Services had petitioned to terminate both parents' rights in August 2024.

Justice Dario Borghesan wrote the opinion. "We AFFIRM the superior court's termination of Victoria's parental rights," the opinion said. The original order found the boy, identified as Milo, in need of aid due to abandonment. A reconsideration order added a finding of neglect. The justices affirmed on neglect alone, saying they did not need to decide abandonment, and cautioned that terminating parental rights on a ground not alleged in the petition may violate a parent's right to due process.

OCS became involved 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. The mother had no contact with him for roughly two months. The father died before the trial ended.

Victoria argued she had left Milo with his father to escape domestic violence. The court found the remaining issue was her choice to leave the boy without adequate care, and that she had not remedied the underlying problems.

Her case plan called for random urinalyses, an integrated mental health and substance abuse assessment, and regular visits. She submitted only one urinalysis, obtained no assessment and refused counseling. At the time of trial she lived in a home paid for until sometime in 2026 through the father's Alaska Housing Finance Corporation voucher.

The boy's maternal grandmother testified that the parents missed more than 80 visits during his time in OCS custody, and that visitation was a "rollercoaster" for him, though she added that "due to the fact that they've been supervised, they have been good visits." Workers described the mother as normally attentive during visits and her relationship with Milo as healthy and appropriate for the most part. Her attendance improved in 2025.

Asked why she missed visits, the mother cited transportation problems and said she was "always on somebody else's schedule," adding that she often volunteered to drive friends to the airport. The court found those explanations unconvincing.

The superior court also found that OCS made reasonable reunification efforts and that termination was in Milo's best interests, citing his time in custody and the stable home his grandparents provided.

The justices found Ahrens erred by granting reconsideration after the appeal was filed, but held the error harmless.

Termination is not automatic in Alaska. In May, the court reversed a termination in Jace v. State over insufficient OCS efforts. This mother did not challenge OCS's efforts on appeal.