from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Nos.
3HO-15-00011/ 00012 CN Third Judicial District, Homer, Anna
Patton Kim, Assistant Public Defender, and Quinlan Steiner,
Public Defender, Anchorage, for Appellant.
T. Jones, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna
Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, and
STOWERS, CHIEF JUSTICE.
days before the termination of parental rights trial in this
Child in Need of Aid (CINA) case, the mother, Kailyn S.,
filed a motion requesting a continuance. In her motion,
Kailyn claimed that a continuance was needed because she had
been offered a job on a fishing vessel that was due to leave
as soon as possible and because a continuance would give her
additional time to meet with her attorney. The motion was not
accompanied by a supporting affidavit or other supporting
evidence. The superior court denied the motion. The trial
proceeded as scheduled, and the court terminated Kailyn's
parental rights to two of her children. Kailyn appeals the
termination of her parental rights based solely on the
argument that the superior court abused its discretion in
denying her request for a continuance.
superior court has broad discretion to grant or deny a
continuance.We review the denial of a continuance only
for abuse of discretion, considering the particular
circumstances to determine whether a party was "deprived
of a substantial right or seriously prejudiced" by the
court's ruling. While Kailyn alleges that denying the
continuance "interfered with her attorney's ability
to provide effective assistance, " she has not
articulated more than speculative arguments about how she
might have been better assisted if the continuance had been
granted. And as explained, the motion was not accompanied by
supporting evidence or supported by an affidavit; it also did
not propose a new trial date or indicate how long the
continuance would need to be to accommodate Kailyn's
emphasized that "CINA cases are very time-sensitive,
" and that "a child's need for
permanence and stability should not be put on hold
indefinitely." We have explained that "[t]he Alaska
Statutes and our precedent establish a clear policy: The best
interests of children, including the interest in permanency
as opposed to leaving children in limbo, are
paramount." It was therefore reasonable for the
superior court to prioritize the children's permanency,
and it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for
AFFIRM the superior court's termination order.
 We use a pseudonym to protect the
 State v. George, 511 P.2d
1293, 1295 n.6 (1973) (citing Spight v. State, 450
P.2d 157, 159 (Alaska 1969)).
Clementine F. v. State, Dep 't
of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's
375 P.3d 39, 43 (Alaska 2016) (quoting
Hannah B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc.
Servs., Office of Children's Servs.,28 ...