all relevant issues at the termination stage."). 26 . See D.M., 995 P.2d at 209 ("[Alt the termination proceeding, a court could review the evidence offered at the adjudication hearing, and, applying the stricter proof standard, make supplemental findings satisfying the requirements for termination."). 27 . AS 47.17.290(9). 28 . The failure of the superior court to specify what subsection of the CINA statute it is proceeding under, let alone what paragraph of the subsection, does not constitute error so long as the court's factual findings support a determination that the child is in need of aid. See A.J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 62 P.3d 609, 613-14 (Alaska 2003). 29 . Cf. McCormick v. City of Dillingham, 16 P.3d 735, 743 (Alaska 2001) (<HOLDING>). 30 . See Martin N. v. State, Dep't of Health
holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for changes not incorporated into contract under theory of breach holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment holding that so long as a complaint provides notice plaintiff can recover under any theory supported by the evidence