Bob S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
400 P.3d 99
| Alaska | 2017Background
- Father Bob S. has a ten-year-old daughter, Tonya (an Indian child under ICWA); mother relinquished rights before trial.
- Tonya exhibited severe sexualized and aggressive behaviors after early exposure to domestic violence and sexual abuse by siblings; she received out-of-state residential treatment (Mar–Dec 2013 to 2014) and continued therapy after returning to Alaska.
- While Tonya was in treatment, Bob completed parenting and outpatient substance-abuse programs but relapsed, later completed additional treatment, and had ongoing supervision concerns (missed supervision issues, unsafe relationships, and drug-test noncompliance).
- After return to Alaska, Tonya’s behavior escalated in connection with visits to Bob; therapists recommended terminating or suspending visitation; OCS cut off visits in 2015 and changed permanency goal to adoption in June 2015.
- Bob delayed and poorly completed a sex-offender risk assessment; evaluator found sex-offender treatment unlikely to help because Bob denied problematic sexual behavior.
- The superior court denied visitation (2015) and, after a 2016 termination trial, terminated Bob’s parental rights; court found ICWA and Alaska statutory elements satisfied (including that continued custody would likely cause serious harm) and that termination was in the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bob) | Defendant's Argument (State/OCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bob remedied harmful conduct | Bob completed outpatient programs and parenting class, so he remedied substance abuse and parenting issues | Court emphasized relapse, UA noncompliance, delayed assessment, unsafe relationships, and ongoing supervision concerns | Court: Bob did not remedy harmful conduct (finding supported) |
| Whether OCS failed to provide active efforts under ICWA | OCS frustrated reunification by ending visitation and severing bond, impeding Bob’s engagement | OCS showed active efforts overall (out-of-state treatment for child, referrals, therapy, visits, and case plans); visitation stopped for child safety reasons | Court: OCS made active but unsuccessful efforts; denial of visitation was in child’s best interests |
| Whether expert testimony met ICWA standards and supported risk of serious harm | Bob challenged qualification of therapist Weeks and argued her testimony did not opine that return would cause harm | State relied on Weeks as qualified trauma expert plus aggregated evidence (risk assessment, lay testimony, child behavior) | Court: Weeks properly qualified; expert and other evidence supported finding that continued custody likely to cause serious damage |
| Whether termination was in child’s best interests | Bob sought more time to rebuild bond; offered to comply with recommendations | State emphasized child’s fragility, improvement after visits stopped, foster family stability, and Bob’s lack of progress | Court: Termination was in Tonya’s best interests; order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jon S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska) (ICWA active-efforts and termination standards)
- Thea G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 291 P.3d 957 (Alaska) (standard of review and expert testimony evaluation under ICWA)
- Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska) (ICWA expert qualification guidance)
- Chloe W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 336 P.3d 1258 (Alaska) (best-interests standard for termination)
- D.H. v. State, 723 P.2d 1274 (Alaska) (parental visitation rights and preserving family ties)
- Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska) (active vs. passive efforts analysis)