I. INTRODUCTION
Star page 1*1 This appeal of an order terminating a mother's parental rights raises questions of both procedure and substance.
The procedural question is whether we may consider the findings the superior court made after the mother had already filed her appeal of the court's order terminating her parental rights on grounds of abandonment. After the appeal was filed, the Office of Children's Services (OCS) moved for reconsideration of the termination order, arguing that the superior court had misconstrued the law when it rejected OCS's petition to find the child in need of aid due to neglect. The superior court granted reconsideration and issued an amended termination order finding the child in need of aid based on neglect. Although the proper procedure for granting reconsideration of an order that had already been appealed was not followed, this procedural error did not cause any prejudice to the mother. She had notice of OCS's intent to terminate due to neglect, the issue had been fully litigated at trial, and the timing of the court's order did not affect the mother's ability to brief this issue for our review. Therefore, we consider the findings and conclusions in the amended termination order.
The substantive questions are whether the superior court clearly erred in finding that the mother neglected her child and failed to remedy the conduct and conditions that led the child to be neglected. We see no clear error in the finding that the three-year-old child was neglected when his mother left him in the care of a father who routinely drank to unconsciousness and exposed the child to unsafe conditions, and the mother made no attempt to contact the child for two months. We also see no clear error in the finding that the mother failed to remedy her conduct when she refused to complete the steps of her case plan and routinely missed visits with the child without convincing reasons. Therefore, we affirm the order terminating parental rights.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
Milo is the son of Victoria and Oliver.1 Starting in 2021, OCS began to receive reports about Milo's family. OCS received a report in early November 2022 that Milo's relatives had taken him to live with his grandparents due to concerns that that Oliver was too drunk to stand up and that Milo, then three years old, was cold, filthy, and unsupervised in a trailer heated by an unshielded wood stove. During this time, Victoria was absent from the home for an extended period. OCS filed a non-emergency child in need of aid (CINA) petition in December 2022 based on allegations of physical harm, neglect, and parental substance abuse. Milo remained in the care of his grandparents.
Over the next few years, OCS created case plans for both parents and worked with them toward reunification. Victoria's case plan goals included establishing sobriety, maintaining a healthy relationship with Milo, finding stable employment, and obtaining safe housing. The case plan directed Victoria to do random urinalyses (UAs), obtain an integrated mental health and substance abuse assessment, and maintain regular visitation with Milo. While OCS was initially optimistic about reunification, Victoria submitted only one UA, did not obtain an assessment, and refused counseling. Although Victoria's visitation attendance improved in 2025, she struggled to attend visitation consistently throughout the case.
B. Proceedings
Star page 2*2 OCS filed a petition to terminate both parents’ parental rights in August 2024. The termination petition alleged that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect and substance abuse. A termination trial was held over multiple days between March and June of 2025. Oliver died before the end of trial.
At trial the court heard testimony from Milo's maternal grandmother, several OCS workers, and Victoria.
1. Trial testimony
a. Milo's maternal grandmother
Milo's maternal grandmother testified about Milo's removal from his parents’ home and visitation. She testified that Oliver's family brought Milo to her home in 2022 before he was formally removed by OCS, but Victoria was angry that her parents had Milo. She recalled that Victoria and Oliver had missed over 80 visits in the two and a half years since Milo was removed from their home. She testified that visitation had been a “rollercoaster for [Milo]” and it was “very difficult for a young boy to be expecting to have a phone call or be expecting to show up to visit with his parents and 80 times to have to tell him I'm sorry, [Milo], you don't have a call today, or ... your parents aren't here for a visit today.” She testified that “due to the fact that they've been supervised, they have been good visits.”
b. OCS workers
The OCS workers who testified described their interactions with the family, their efforts to engage Victoria in services, and their observations about visitation. One testified that he struggled to locate Victoria but was eventually able to communicate with her over the phone. He recalled that Victoria “had a history of being absent all the time and nobody could really find her.” The case worker noted that Victoria “didn't have much as far as parenting abilities” and “didn't know much about what was going on with her child.” He testified that Victoria had told him that Oliver was “an alcoholic and he wasn't fit to be a parent,” and then “admitted she wasn't around all the time.” He also testified that when he spoke with Victoria after receiving a report that Milo had been left alone with Oliver, she said that she had not seen Milo for approximately 30 days. He stated that “when [Victoria] came into the picture, she wanted to cooperate” but “was focused more on arguing with [Oliver].” The first case worker also testified that Victoria “didn't know much about parental dos and don'ts.”
The other OCS worker testified about developing Victoria's case plan to address her absenteeism and establish her sobriety. But the case worker noted that during the two years she had the case, “there[ ] [had] been [a] lot[ ] of the ups and downs and inconsistencies,” and Victoria had “not follow[ed] through with case plan activities really at all.” She testified that they “just never made any progress over two years in establishing and completing those goals in the case plan.” When asked if there were any external barriers preventing Victoria from engaging with services, the case worker responded that Victoria “communicated that she was refusing to do them.”
This case worker also testified about visitation. One of Victoria's case plan goals was to “keep a healthy attachment and bond between parent and child.” Victoria had not seen Milo for three months by the time OCS reached her and started visitation. The case worker recalled that at times Victoria “was absolutely great, no issues whatsoever,” but “there was never an environment created where it felt like there was growth and change with [Victoria] to the point of being able to extend beyond supervised visits.” The case worker testified that Victoria and Milo had a relationship that was “healthy and appropriate for the most part,” but “[y]ou certainly could see some extreme disappointment and sadness on [Milo's] face when his parents wouldn't show up to a visit.”
Star page 3*3 The third case worker took over the case around the time the termination trial began. He testified that Victoria told him she had completed some online classes, but when he asked her for a copy of the class certificates “she said she would provide them to her lawyer, and [he] never received any further information about those.” He also stated that as of June 2025, Victoria had missed seven in-person visits since the beginning of the year.
Two OCS workers who had supervised visitation also testified. One worker shared that Victoria was initially unreachable but then came to the OCS office in person. She testified that Victoria's visitation with Milo fluctuated in frequency and duration “because there were times when [Victoria] was unreachable for long periods of time.” The OCS worker recalled that there were times when OCS decreased the level of supervision required during visits, but reverted to a higher level of supervision “due to parents falling asleep during visits, missing visits, [and] showing up late to visits.” She did not facilitate overnight visits because both parents were “essentially couch surfing .... [a]nd then their behaviors were just erratic and inconsistent, whereas it did not meet the kind of qualifications that they would safely care for the child overnight.” She testified that Victoria and Milo “had a good relationship” in the sense that “they love each other,” and Milo would become “upset and distraught” when his parents did not show up for visitation.
The other OCS worker also testified about coordinating and supervising visitation. She stated that Victoria was normally “very attentive” during visits and she did not typically have to interfere. When asked if she thought Victoria could meet Milo's needs full-time based on her visit observations, she responded that she was not sure and felt like “[o]ne-hour visits once a week [are] completely different than 24/7, 365.”
c. Victoria
Victoria testified at the end of trial. She testified that she and Oliver “went through a really hard time. Mainly for him, it was a really dark time and [she] didn't really know how to deal with it at the time that it was happening.” She stated that she was “very stubborn and prideful, so asking for help was something that [she] should have done, but at the time [she] was not emotionally mature enough to ... put [her] pride down and ask for help.” She recalled that she was “never really an absent parent until, like, the last month or so” before OCS became involved, which she attributed to thinking that she “had to do everything on [her] own.”
Victoria testified about leaving Milo home with Oliver. She testified that “being home at nights when [Milo] was sleeping would escalate things in relation to ... arguing” with Oliver. Victoria stated that she “would remove [herself] and come back when [Oliver] was sleeping.” She recalled that at the time she “thought that that was best, but [she] now see[s] that that could have been handled a lot more in the benefit of [Milo] than just trying to keep the peace without asking for help.” Victoria testified that Milo was not neglected when she left the home in 2022 because she knew that Milo was with his grandparents. She stated that OCS should not have removed Milo just because she had not seen him for a few months.
Victoria testified about her case plan and engagement with OCS. She explained that she refused drug testing because she thought that OCS was primarily concerned about Oliver's substance abuse. She described her first OCS case worker as the kind of “toxic authority” she had grown to resent as a child, which is why she was “not willing to really cooperate and open up to them” and “rebelled” against OCS. She also stated that she was resistant to counseling because she had done extensive counseling when she was younger and did not feel she benefited from it. Victoria testified about taking a couple of classes online that were related to child welfare and domestic violence, but she had not provided proof of these courses to OCS.
Star page 4*4 Victoria also testified about her housing and job searches. At the time of trial she lived in a home that was paid for until sometime in 2026 through Oliver's Alaska Housing Finance Corporation voucher. She testified that she was also looking for full-time employment instead of seasonal work. She shared that she did some part-time work but wanted to open a holistic apothecary. She stated that “[she] ha[s] to enjoy what [she's] doing, so [she was] tak[ing] time to even figure out what that is.”
Finally, Victoria testified about visitation. When asked why she had missed so many visits, she responded that “a lot of the times — [she] [felt] like it was self-sabotage maybe even, but a lot of the problems were rides.” She testified that she had received rides from OCS to attend visitation, but when she coordinated rides with friends she was “always on somebody else's schedule” which caused her to miss visits. She also stated that she missed some visits because she “was constantly on the road” at times because she often volunteered to give friends rides to the airport.
2. The court's termination order
In September 2025 the court terminated Victoria's parental rights. The court first assessed whether Milo was a child in need of aid. OCS had petitioned to terminate Victoria's parental rights based on neglect2 and substance abuse.3 During closing arguments, the guardian ad litem (GAL) also requested that the court consider whether Milo was a child in need of aid due to abandonment.
The court considered whether Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect under AS 47.10.011(9). OCS argued that Victoria had neglected Milo by failing to provide for his physical or mental needs when she left him alone with Oliver. OCS also argued that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect because Victoria had delayed Milo receiving dental care after he was taken into OCS custody. The court acknowledged that OCS had determined it was too dangerous for Milo to be left alone in Oliver's care, and Victoria had admitted during trial that she should not have left Milo alone with Oliver. But the court focused its neglect analysis on OCS's argument about the delay in Milo's dental care. Noting that the evidence indicated the delay in treatment did not exacerbate Milo's dental care needs, the court found that OCS had not met its burden to establish that Milo was in need of aid due to neglect.
The court then considered whether Milo was a child in need of aid due to substance abuse. The court attributed Victoria's resistance to drug testing to her distrust of authorities and “the system” and found insufficient evidence that Victoria actually used drugs. The court held that OCS had failed to prove that Victoria was addicted to or habitually used substances and that this use affected her ability to parent.
But the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Milo was a child in need of aid due to abandonment under AS 47.10.013,4 as the GAL had urged. The court found that Milo could not care for himself at age three and that Victoria had left the home for over a month before OCS became involved, knowing that Milo would be alone with Oliver and that Oliver was not a safe parent. The court also found that Victoria failed to have consistent visits with Milo after removal. The court concluded that while the bond between Milo and Victoria was reestablished, Milo was a child in need of aid due to abandonment.
Star page 5*5 The court then considered whether Victoria had remedied the conduct or conditions placing Milo at substantial risk of harm. The court found that Victoria's efforts to remedy her conduct had been “minimal or very late in the case.” It noted Victoria's refusal to complete any assessments or testing beyond a single UA. The court found that although Victoria had improved her bond with Milo through visitation, she had not provided proof to OCS that she completed any parenting classes about healthy attachment. And it found that while Victoria had secured stable housing at least until 2026, she had not obtained employment and could not provide for Milo.
The court also found that Victoria's conduct caused harm to Milo because she had left him with an unsafe caretaker in an unsafe environment. The court found that Victoria's missed visits caused Milo to be “sad and disappointed.” It concluded that Victoria had not remedied the conduct or conditions that put Milo at risk of harm because she would likely miss visits in the future and the transition from supervised visits to unsupervised visits to home visits could take another six months.
The court also found that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family despite Victoria's refusals to engage with her case plan. Finally, the court found that termination was in Milo's best interests because of the amount of time he had spent in OCS custody and the positive home life his grandparents provided him.
3. Notice of appeal and motion for reconsideration
Victoria filed a notice of appeal on October 1, 2025. OCS filed a motion for reconsideration in superior court on October 3, 2025, requesting that the court find that Milo was in need of aid based on substance abuse and neglect. OCS argued that the facts supporting the court's abandonment finding also supported a finding of neglect because neither Victoria nor Oliver took care of Milo's basic needs.5 OCS also argued that Victoria continued to neglect Milo's mental and emotional needs by routinely missing visits. Regarding whether she remedied this issue, OCS argued that Victoria had continued to miss visits through the end of trial and had made only minimal changes demonstrating that she could adequately care for Milo.
The court partially granted OCS's motion and found that OCS had proven that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect. The court stated that Victoria had neglected Milo by leaving him in a dangerous situation without a safe caregiver and not contacting him for approximately two months. The court reiterated that Victoria had made minimal progress on her case plan and had not remedied the conduct that put Milo at substantial risk of physical or mental injury due to neglect.
Victoria appeals the termination of her parental rights.
III. DISCUSSION
A. It Was Error To Grant Reconsideration And Issue An Amended Termination Order After Appeal Had Been Taken, But This Error Does Not Require Us To Disregard The Amended Order.
We first consider a threshold procedural issue. Victoria filed a notice of appeal in October 2025. OCS filed a motion for reconsideration two days later. The superior court issued an order granting reconsideration in December 2025. The order on reconsideration found that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect and concluded that Victoria had not remedied the conduct or conditions that put Milo at risk of neglect. Victoria argues that the court erred by granting reconsideration after she filed a notice of appeal, so the findings made on reconsideration cannot serve as the basis for upholding termination of her parental rights. Although we agree the superior court made a procedural error, we do not agree that this error bars us from considering its amended factual findings.
Star page 6*6 “The supervision and control of the proceedings on appeal is in the appellate court from the time the notice of appeal is filed with the clerk of the appellate courts, except as otherwise provided in these rules.”6 Once an appeal is filed, “[a]bsent an express remand order, the superior court cannot then modify any matters directly or necessarily involved in the matter under review, although the superior court retains jurisdiction over collateral matters.”7
We considered whether a superior court had authority to decide a motion for reconsideration after a notice of appeal had been filed in Howard S. Lease Construction Co. & Associates v. Holly.8 The appellant in Howard S. Lease filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal on the same day.9 The superior court partially granted the appellant's motion.10 The appellee argued on cross-appeal that the superior court did not have the authority to consider the motion for reconsideration once a notice of appeal had been filed.11 We agreed, holding that if “the court determine[s] that the motion should be granted, the movant should obtain a stay of the appellate proceedings and a remand for the stated purpose of granting the motion.”12 Because that process had not been followed, the reconsideration order was issued in error.13
But we declined to reverse in Howard S. Lease because the error was harmless.14 Noting that the appellee “[did] not dispute the substance of the superior court's action on reconsideration or otherwise show that his rights were affected,” we held that the “[f]ailure to follow this procedure was harmless error.”15 Because the error was harmless, we left the portions of the judgment modified on reconsideration undisturbed.16
Victoria's attempt to distinguish Howard S. Lease is unavailing. She argues that the court's error in this case was not harmless because she disputes the substance of its findings on reconsideration. But we do not read Howard S. Lease to stand for the proposition that this kind of procedural error is necessarily harmful when a party challenges the substance of the order on reconsideration. Rather, the question is whether the mistaken procedure caused prejudice. Here it did not.
Victoria has failed to show how her rights were affected by the timing of the court's order granting reconsideration. Victoria had notice of OCS's intention to prove that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect because its petition to terminate her parental rights alleged neglect. The issue was fully litigated at trial. And the court's ruling did not come so late in the appeal process that it prejudiced Victoria's ability to brief this issue for our review. Victoria moved to supplement the record with the additional superior court filings and was granted additional time for briefing. Had the court followed the correct procedure by instructing OCS to seek a stay of the appeal pending the superior court's order on reconsideration, the appeal would have unfolded in the same way it did here. Victoria would have challenged the court's order on reconsideration, and we would have reviewed the order in the same way we do now. Because the procedural error did not cause Victoria any prejudice, we need not disregard the findings in the order on reconsideration.17
Star page 7*7 Victoria argues that even if we accept the court's order as valid, the court granted reconsideration for improper reasons. The superior court may grant reconsideration if (1) it overlooked or misapplied controlling authority, (2) it overlooked or misconstrued a material fact or legal principle, (3) it failed to address a material issue, or (4) the governing law has since changed by statute or decision.18
“We review the decision to grant a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion.”19 “An abuse of discretion exists if the superior court's decision ‘is arbitrary, capricious, manifestly unreasonable, or ... stem[s] from an improper motive.’ ”20 Victoria suggests the superior court's decision was arbitrary because the court did not explain what law or material fact it overlooked or misconceived. Victoria further argues that “the appearance that the superior court only reconsidered its findings after it became aware that its previous findings were potentially vulnerable to being reversed on appeal” indicates that the superior court acted out of an improper motive.
The superior court appears to have granted the motion because it agreed with OCS's argument that it had misconstrued the standard for establishing neglect. The court's order on reconsideration reiterated many of the factual findings it made in its termination order. But it also found that Victoria had “failed to provide [Milo] with food, clothing, shelter, or other items for his physical or mental needs.” The court concluded that “[a]fter relistening to the testimony, [it] agrees that it overlooked the fact that these facts certainly meet the burden for abandonment and also meet the burden for neglect.” This is a permissible basis for reconsideration; courts may grant reconsideration where the court has “overlooked or misconceived some material fact or proposition of law.”21
The court's analysis does not suggest that its decision to partially grant reconsideration was arbitrary or unreasonable. Nor does the record support Victoria's assertion that the court acted out of an improper motive. Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion by partially granting reconsideration.
B. It Was Not Clear Error To Find That Milo Was A Child In Need Of Aid Due To Neglect.
The superior court cannot terminate parental rights unless it finds that the child “has been subjected to conduct or conditions described in AS 47.10.011 and is thus in need of aid.”22 Victoria argues that the court erred by finding that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect. Under AS 47.10.014, “the court may find neglect of a child if the parent ... fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attention, or other care and control necessary” for the “physical and mental health and development” of the child despite having the financial ability to do so.
Star page 8*8 Victoria argues that she did not neglect Milo. Although she knew Oliver was not a safe parent, she maintains that she believed Milo would be cared for by his grandparents, who were suitable caregivers. Victoria argues that there is no statutory requirement that a parent directly provide care to a child and maintains that she “reasonably ensure[d]” care was provided.
We review a superior court's findings of fact in a CINA case for clear error.23 “Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if a review of the entire record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below leaves us ‘with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ”24
We are not convinced that the superior court clearly erred in finding that Victoria failed to provide for Milo. The court found that Victoria left three-year-old Milo alone with his father despite knowing that Milo's father was an unsafe caregiver. The court found that Milo's father was drinking heavily — sometimes to the point of unconsciousness — when Victoria left Milo in his care. The court noted that Milo was unable to care for himself and was “essentially alone” while his father was passed out. The court found that Victoria had no contact with Milo for two months after leaving Milo with his father in 2022. And the court found that it was other family members, not Victoria, who took Milo to his grandparents’ house out of concern for his safety. These findings support the court's conclusion that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect.
The record indicates that Victoria failed to provide for Milo's physical and mental needs when she left him with an alcoholic who she knew was not a safe caregiver. After reviewing the record, we are not left with a firm and definite conviction that the court made a mistake by finding that Milo was a child in need of aid due to neglect. Thus, the court's finding was not clearly erroneous.25
C. It Was Not Clear Error To Find That Victoria Failed To Remedy The Conduct And Conditions That Led Milo To Be Neglected.
Star page 9*9 A superior court may not terminate parental rights unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has failed to remedy in a reasonable time the conduct or conditions that placed the child at substantial risk, such that returning the child to the parent would put the child at substantial risk of physical or mental injury.26 When evaluating whether a parent has remedied their conduct, the court may consider: “(1) the likelihood of returning the child to the parent within a reasonable time based on the child's age or needs;” (2) the parent's efforts “to remedy the conduct or the conditions in the home; (3) the harm caused to the child; (4) the likelihood that the harmful conduct will continue; and (5) the history of conduct by or conditions created by the parent.”27
We review a superior court's finding that a parent failed to remedy the conduct or conditions that placed their child at substantial risk of harm for clear error.28
Victoria argues that the court erred in finding that she failed to remedy the conduct and conditions that put Milo at risk of harm.29 Victoria argues that she left Milo with his father to escape domestic violence and that if Milo was neglected it was because Oliver was not a safe caregiver. She suggests that because Oliver is now deceased, these issues are no longer a concern; Milo is no longer at risk of neglect due to Oliver's conduct and she no longer has a reason to leave him with others so she can escape Oliver.30
But Victoria's argument fails to recognize the underlying conduct that placed Milo at risk: Victoria's choice to leave Milo in a risky situation without adequate care or supervision. Testimony at trial revealed that Victoria made this choice due to a combination of inadequate coping and parenting skills, pride, and a limited sense of responsibility for Milo's welfare. Thus, the question facing the superior court was whether Victoria had remedied these deficiencies.
The court found that Victoria's efforts to remedy her conduct had been “minimal or very late in the case.” The court noted Victoria's refusal to complete an integrated assessment for substance abuse and mental health or participate in consistent drug testing. And while Victoria had found stable housing through 2026 — living in housing funded by a voucher that Oliver had obtained before he died — she had not yet found a job so she could provide for Milo.
The court also found that although Victoria had improved her bond with Milo through visitation, she continued to miss visits, causing Milo to feel sad and disappointed. The court found that the harm was likely to continue because Victoria would likely miss visits in the future. The court noted that even if Victoria attended all future visits, the transition from supervised visits to longer-term unsupervised visits could take upwards of six months. The court described this hypothetical transition period as “a significant amount of time” for a child Milo's age, indicating that the failure to provide Milo with permanency more quickly could be detrimental to his wellbeing.
Star page 10*10 We see no clear error in the court's finding that Victoria had not remedied the deficiencies that put Milo at substantial risk of harm. Victoria did not present evidence of compelling reasons for missing visits. Victoria did not have a regular job and did not suggest that she missed visits due to seasonal work. She also lived in the same community where Milo lived with his grandparents. When asked at trial about missing visits, Victoria testified that “a lot of the times — [she] [felt] like it was self-sabotage ... but a lot of the problems were rides.” While she argues that it was often difficult to get to the OCS office without her own transportation, both Victoria and an OCS worker testified that OCS provided Victoria some rides to and from visitation.31 Victoria also testified that she missed some visits because she regularly volunteered to drive friends to the airport, so she “was constantly on the road.”
Victoria's explanations for missing visits demonstrate a lack of insight into the importance of consistency in a child's life. This supports the court's finding that Victoria would likely miss future visits and cause Milo more emotional harm. After reviewing the record, we are not firmly convinced that the superior court made a mistake by finding that Victoria failed to remedy the combination of poor insight, pride, and limited sense of responsibility that caused her to leave Milo in a dangerous environment without contacting him for months. Thus, the court did not clearly err in finding that Victoria had not remedied her conduct such that it would be safe to return Milo to her care.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court's termination of Victoria's parental rights.