Bill S. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 436 P.3d 976

Background

Bill and Clara, parents from St. Paul Island, had long histories of alcohol abuse and mutual domestic violence; their two children, Noah (12) and Olwen (5), are enrolled/affiliate members of the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island and therefore are Indian children under ICWA.
OCS removed the children in August 2015; they were adjudicated CINA in February 2016 and later placed with relatives off-island (Wasilla, then Juneau).
OCS prepared a case plan only shortly before the adjudication hearing; services on St. Paul were limited (mainly outpatient) and OCS relied on tribal providers for on-island contacts and services.
Parents intermittently attended some classes and assessments but did not complete recommended inpatient treatment; both continued drinking and domestic violence, and visits were sometimes suspended for intoxication.
At the termination trial OCS primarily relied on the caseworker’s oral testimony plus the case/contact plans; the superior court found active efforts by a narrow margin and terminated parental rights in January 2018.
On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court reversed: it held the record lacked the detailed documentation or sufficient caseworker testimony required under ICWA and the 2016 BIA regulations to show active efforts by clear and convincing evidence, vacated the terminations, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCS made the "active efforts" required by ICWA before terminating parental rights	Parents: OCS evidence was vague, overgeneralized, and did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard	OCS: it provided ongoing services, relied on tribal providers, facilitated visits, and took reasonable steps given limited on-island resources	Reversed: record insufficient to show active efforts by clear and convincing evidence; termination vacated and case remanded
Whether parents’ unwillingness to participate can substitute for detailed OCS efforts	Parents: their nonparticipation does not relieve OCS of its obligation to make and document active efforts	OCS/Court below: parents’ persistent refusal can be considered when assessing whether further efforts would be futile	Court: parental refusal is a relevant consideration but does not excuse OCS’s failure to document or demonstrably perform active efforts
Whether oral caseworker testimony without contemporaneous documentation suffices under BIA Regulations	Parents: testimony was too generic and deferred to the Tribe without specifics; documentation requirement unmet	OCS: caseworker testimony and case plans show efforts; tribal actions supplemented OCS work	Court: the 2016 Regulations require detailed documentation in the record; here testimony was too vague and documentation was inadequate
Whether remand should be expedited given children's time in custody	Parents: seek reversal and remand for proper proceedings; emphasize delay harm to children	OCS: (acknowledges need to proceed but defends prior steps)	Court: remand required and must be expedited to achieve permanency for the children

Key Cases Cited

Caitlyn E. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 399 P.3d 646 (Alaska 2017) (discusses ICWA active efforts and standards for caseworker testimony)
Philip J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 314 P.3d 518 (Alaska 2013) (active efforts inquiry is fact-specific; no rigid formula)
Jon S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA requires active efforts to prevent breakup of Indian family)
N.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 19 P.3d 597 (Alaska 2001) (active efforts involve taking parents through steps of plan rather than leaving plan to be performed independently)
David S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 270 P.3d 767 (Alaska 2012) (guidance on ICWA implementation and consideration of BIA guidance)