for two years. A close parent-child relationship with each of the adoptive parents has been established, and her removal would cause severe emotional damage. See Maricopa Cnty., 667 P.2d at 234 (affirming family court’s finding of good cause where the child had resided with the adoptive mother for three years, that a close mother-child relationship had been established, and that the baby’s removal would cause psychological damage). Addition ally, Mother has consistently expressed her desire that Baby Girl be placed with Appellants. ICWA expressly provides that courts should consider the preference of a parent. See 25 U.S.C. § 1915(c) (“Where appropriate, the preference of the Indian child or parent shall be considered ...”); see also In the Adoption of F.H., 851 P.2d 1361 (Alaska 1993) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, Appellants have expressed and
holding mothers preference for placement with nonindian adoptive parents was appropriate factor in finding good cause holding that prospective adoptive parents do not have a fundamental liberty interest in adoption holding likewise in preference action holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause recognizing that postadoption visitation limited to when adoptive parents are grandparents siblings or foster parents