Annette H. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 450 P.3d 259

Justin born March 2014; October 2016 OCS report alleged child exposure to methamphetamine and marijuana in home shared by mother Annette H. and partner Matthew.
OCS obtained a writ of assistance, briefly returned Justin to mother pending results, then placed him in foster care after hair-follicle test came back positive for methamphetamine and marijuana.
Annette and Matthew denied personal meth use, suggested visitors might have exposed Justin; no drugs or paraphernalia (other than a bag of marijuana) were found in the home; neither parent tested positive on oral swabs and both declined hair testing.
OCS developed a case plan (substance and mental health assessments, UAs, parenting classes), provided bus passes, walk-in referrals, and offers to accompany Annette; Annette, who has anxiety/mental health issues, repeatedly failed to complete assessments and often insisted on having Matthew present.
After nearly two years of casework with limited engagement from Annette, the superior court found Justin a child in need of aid (neglect, substance abuse, mental illness), concluded OCS made reasonable reunification efforts, and terminated Annette’s parental rights; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCS proved Justin was a child in need of aid (CINA) based on neglect/substance/mental-illness	Annette: OCS failed to show causal link between her conduct and Justin’s drug exposure; follicle result alone doesn’t prove parental misconduct	State: Follicle positive plus absence of alternative exposure sites and parents’ conduct (allowing visitors, lack of protective measures) permit inference exposure occurred in home and supports neglect finding	Affirmed: Court held follicle result and case circumstances supported reasonable inference Justin was exposed in parents’ care; neglect proved by clear and convincing evidence
Whether OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify given Annette’s anxiety/mental-health limitations	Annette: OCS failed to tailor accommodations to her anxiety (should have consulted mental-health expert; do more to engage her)	State: OCS provided reasonable accommodations (walk-in referrals, bus passes, offers to accompany, various service options) and parent’s nonengagement limited what OCS could do	Affirmed: Court found OCS made timely, reasonable efforts taking Annette’s limitations into account; parent’s refusal to engage justified termination efforts

Denny M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 365 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2016) (standard of review for termination factual findings)
Payton S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 349 P.3d 162 (Alaska 2015) (one CINA ground is sufficient to affirm termination)
Audrey H. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 188 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2008) (OCS’s duty to offer services; efforts must be reasonable but need not be perfect)
Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (OCS must consider and reasonably accommodate parent’s disabilities)
Emma D. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 322 P.3d 842 (Alaska 2014) (what constitutes an adequate offer of services by OCS)
Violet C. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 436 P.3d 1032 (Alaska 2019) (reasonable-efforts standard and assessment in light of circumstances)
In re Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017) (trial court must make sufficiently specific findings to allow meaningful appellate review)
Borchgrevink v. Borchgrevink, 941 P.2d 132 (Alaska 1997) (trial findings must reveal factors the court considered)