of child's best interests). 13 . Sylvia asserts that she would have pursued a different trial strategy had she known that OCS intended to assert mental illness as a basis for termination, but she gives no specifics. In fact, Sylvia's mental illness was a significant issue at trial, and her need for well-directed treatment of it is the focus of her "active efforts" argument on this appeal, as addressed later in this opinion. 14 . See, eg., Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 290 P.3d 421, 431 (Alaska 2012) ("Because we affirm the superior court's finding of abandonment, we do not reach the State's alternative argument for termination based on neglect."). 15 . See Alderman v. Iditarod Props., Inc., 32 P.3d 373, 395-96 (Alaska 2001) (<HOLDING>). 16 , AS 47.10.086(a); AS 47.10.088(a)(3). 17
holding district court abused discretion in denying leave to amend complaint to add claim when party opposing motion made no showing of prejudice from delay recognizing that to preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal when the government rests or at the close of all the evidence holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend holding that the superior court abused its discretion in allowing an amendment alleging a new claim at the close of evidence where the prejudice to the opposing parties due to their inability to present evidence on the claim outweighed the hardship to the amending party holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court