## Facts

- On March 7, 1975, a social worker with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services filed a dependency petition regarding four juveniles: S.D., Jr., M.D., A.D., and I.D.
- The petition alleged the juveniles’ mother and father abused alcohol, causing school absences and depriving the children of proper parental care.
- The juvenile court found the juveniles were dependent and ordered them to remain in the State’s temporary custody pending a disposition hearing.
- At the disposition hearing on March 14, 1975, the juvenile court ordered that the juveniles reside at the Alaska Youth Village until June 1976.
- The court directed the State to provide services to the parents to improve their ability to provide proper parental care.
- The court stated the juveniles could return home in June 1977 if the parents showed they were prepared to provide proper parental care.
- The court further ordered that, whether or not the juveniles returned home, the State would retain custody until June 1978.
- The mother and father appealed, arguing (among other points) that the State had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that removal from the home was in the juveniles’ best interests and that the State failed to meet that burden.

## Issues

1. In a dependency disposition that removes children from the parental home and continues state custody, must the State prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disposition is in the children’s best interests?
2. Was there sufficient evidentiary support for the juvenile court’s placement and custody plan, including continued custody through June 1978 with a possible return home in June 1977?

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s dependency disposition order.
- In addressing the parents’ burden-of-proof argument, the court treated the State as bearing a preponderance-of-the-evidence burden to justify removal as serving the juveniles’ best interests.
- The court concluded the record supported the challenged disposition, including out-of-home placement, services to the parents, and continued state custody for the period set by the juvenile court.

## Legal Principles

- In a state-initiated juvenile dependency disposition involving out-of-home placement and continued state custody, the State must justify removal as serving the child’s best interests under at least a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.
- Disposition in dependency matters focuses on the child’s welfare, including whether the child is receiving proper parental care.
- A juvenile court may order a structured disposition that combines (1) out-of-home placement, (2) services aimed at improving parental capacity, (3) a conditional opportunity for return to the home, and (4) continued state custody and supervision during a defined period.

## Conclusion

In *In re S.D., Jr.*, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court disposition entered after a dependency adjudication for four children where parental alcohol abuse was alleged to have caused school absences and inadequate care. The disposition placed the children at Alaska Youth Village, required the State to provide services to the parents, allowed for a possible return home if the parents demonstrated readiness, and retained state custody through June 1978. The court treated the State as bearing a preponderance-of-the-evidence burden to show removal and continued custody served the children’s best interests and held that the record supported the juvenile court’s plan.


In re S.D., Jr., 549 P.2d 1190 (1976)