The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court's decision to terminate a father's parental rights in a case involving drug use and child welfare concerns. The court issued its memorandum opinion and judgment on Jan. 14, 2026, in *Donny P. v. State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children's Services*.
The case began when the Office of Children's Services removed a newborn baby from her parents after the child's umbilical cord tested positive for methamphetamine. This positive drug test served as the initial basis for OCS intervention and the subsequent child welfare proceedings.
Approximately six months after the baby's removal, the father, who was already on felony probation, was incarcerated for possessing methamphetamine and testing positive for the controlled substance. The father's legal troubles escalated when he subsequently rejected his probation terms and elected to serve the remainder of a previously suspended prison sentence.
During the father's incarceration, OCS attempted to work with him toward family reunification, which is a standard goal in child welfare cases. However, the agency's efforts were significantly limited by the father's lengthy imprisonment, including periods when he was held in protective custody. These constraints made it difficult for OCS to provide the typical services and support programs that might facilitate reunification.
The superior court, presided over by Judge Marianna C. Carpeneti in the First Judicial District in Juneau, ultimately ruled that OCS had made reasonable efforts to support reunification despite the challenging circumstances. Based on this finding and other factors in the case, the trial court terminated the father's parental rights.
The father appealed the superior court's determination, specifically challenging the court's conclusion that OCS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. In child welfare cases, the state typically must demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify families before parental rights can be terminated.
The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case under Supreme Court No. S-19382, with the original superior court case numbered 1JU-23-00009 CN. The appellant was represented by Olena Kalytiak Davis from the Office of Public Advocacy in Anchorage. The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Teitell from Anchorage and Attorney General Treg Taylor from Juneau.
The five-justice panel consisted of Chief Justice Carney and Justices Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec. After reviewing the case record and the father's arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court found no error in the superior court's determination.
"Seeing no error, we affirm," the court wrote in its brief memorandum opinion. The affirmation means the termination of the father's parental rights stands, and the child remains in state custody or alternative placement arrangements.
The case highlights the complex intersection of substance abuse, criminal justice involvement, and child welfare law in Alaska. When parents struggle with drug addiction while also facing incarceration, it creates significant challenges for both families and child welfare agencies trying to balance child safety with family preservation goals.
Importantly, the court's decision was issued as a memorandum opinion, which means it does not create binding legal precedent for future cases. As noted in the court's standard notice, parties wishing to cite such decisions in briefs or oral arguments must review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) for guidance on appropriate citation practices.
The case represents one of many challenging situations faced by Alaska's child welfare system, where parental substance abuse intersects with child safety concerns. The positive methamphetamine test in the newborn's umbilical cord provided clear evidence of prenatal drug exposure, which typically triggers immediate child protective intervention.
Family reunification efforts in such cases often involve substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, regular drug testing, and supervised visitation. However, when parents face incarceration, particularly for drug-related offenses, these reunification services become much more difficult to implement effectively.
The father's decision to reject probation and serve his suspended sentence likely further complicated reunification efforts, as it extended his time in custody and reduced opportunities for the supervised contact and services that might support family reunification.
While the court affirmed the termination decision, the case underscores the ongoing challenges facing Alaska's child welfare system in balancing child safety with family preservation when substance abuse and incarceration intersect. The decision reflects the reality that even when agencies attempt reunification efforts, certain circumstances can make successful family reunification extremely difficult to achieve.