have done more."). 31 . 25 U.S.C. §19120 (2012); 18(c)(4). CINA Rule 32 . L.G. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 P.3d 946, 950 (Alaska 2000). 33 . See D.M. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 995 P.2d 205, 210-12 (Alaska 2000) (noting that although the court did not condone the timing of the State's actions, there was no due process violation where the parent failed to show prejudice from the State's failure to give notice that it would request that CINA findings be made under a clear and convincing standard rather than a preponderance of the evidence standard). 34 . See Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 201 P.3d 496, 507 (Alaska 2009) (quoting JA. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 50 P.3d 395, 400 (Alaska 2002)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). 35 . See id. at 504-05; In re Candace A., 332
holding that the trial court may rely on the testimony of an expert even if the expert did not interview the mother daughter or nonocs service providers recognizing that an expert may rely on an article because it is the expert who determines based on study and experience whether the article is reliable holding expert testimony remedies speculation by the court holding that an expert witnesss testimony on an ultimate issue was admissible recognizing that the expert did not specifically testify that the defendant was guilty or that as a matter of law the facts satisfied the applicable legal standard holding that the trial court had erred by excluding the expert testimony of a doctor