The Alaska Supreme Court issued a memorandum opinion on January 28, 2026, addressing consolidated appeals brought by two parents against the State of Alaska's Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children's Services. The consolidated cases, numbered S-19328 and S-19337, originated from the Palmer Superior Court under case number 3PA-20-00147 CN.
The appellants, identified as Jeremiah H. and Jocelyn H., challenged decisions made by the Office of Children's Services regarding emergency custody of a child. According to court records, OCS assumed emergency custody due to reports that the family struggled with domestic violence and substance abuse issues. The agency subsequently developed case plans for each parent and made referrals as part of their intervention process.
The cases were heard before Justices Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec of the Alaska Supreme Court. Chief Justice Carney did not participate in the proceedings. Superior Court Judge Jonathan A. Woodman presided over the original proceedings in the Third Judicial District court in Palmer.
Representing appellant Jeremiah H. were Assistant Public Defender Justin Gillette and Public Defender Terrence Haas, both from Anchorage. Appellant Jocelyn H. was represented by Michael L. Horowitz from the Law Office of Michael Horowitz in Kingsley, Michigan. The State was represented by Senior Assistant Attorney General Laura Fox of Anchorage and Attorney General Treg Taylor of Juneau.
The court's decision was issued as a memorandum opinion under Alaska Appellate Rule 214, which carries specific limitations regarding its precedential value. The court included a notice stating that memorandum decisions do not create legal precedent and advised that parties wishing to cite such decisions in briefs or oral arguments should review Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) for proper guidance.
Child welfare cases in Alaska typically involve complex proceedings where the state's interest in protecting children must be balanced against parental rights. The Office of Children's Services operates under statutory authority to intervene when children are believed to be at risk of harm. Emergency custody proceedings allow OCS to remove children from homes when immediate danger is suspected, though parents retain the right to challenge such actions through the court system.
The consolidation of these two separate appeals suggests that both cases involved related circumstances or legal issues warranting joint consideration by the high court. Consolidated proceedings are often used when multiple cases share common questions of law or fact, allowing for more efficient judicial resolution.
Alaska's child welfare system has faced ongoing scrutiny regarding its intervention practices and the balance between child protection and family preservation. Cases involving domestic violence and substance abuse present particular challenges for child welfare agencies, as these issues can create unsafe environments for children while also representing treatable conditions that may allow families to be reunified with appropriate services and support.
The involvement of public defenders for one appellant and private counsel for another reflects the different representation options available to parents in child welfare proceedings. While some parents qualify for appointed counsel through the public defender system, others may choose or be required to retain private attorneys.
Memorandom opinions, while not creating binding precedent, still provide guidance on how Alaska's highest court applies existing law to specific factual situations. These decisions can influence how lower courts and attorneys approach similar cases, even without the formal precedential weight of full published opinions.
The timeline of these cases, originating in 2020 and reaching final resolution in 2026, illustrates the lengthy process often involved in child welfare appeals. Such delays, while sometimes necessary for thorough consideration of complex issues, can create prolonged uncertainty for families involved in the system.
The outcome of these consolidated appeals will likely affect the specific families involved and may influence how similar cases are handled by OCS and the courts in the future. While the memorandum format limits the decision's precedential impact, it still represents the Alaska Supreme Court's interpretation of relevant statutes and constitutional provisions governing child welfare proceedings.
For families facing similar circumstances, these cases underscore the importance of understanding both the scope of state authority in child protection matters and the avenues available for challenging agency decisions. The appeals process, while often lengthy and complex, remains a critical safeguard for parental rights within Alaska's child welfare system.