Caitlyn E. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 2017 Alas. LEXIS 74

Mother Caitlyn, a Yupik woman in Bethel, has two Indian children (Maggie and Bridget) placed with their grandmother after OCS removed them for substance exposure, neglect, and physical harm.
Caitlyn has a long history of substance abuse, periods of disengagement from services, a tuberculosis diagnosis that delayed treatment, and multiple discharges from treatment programs for misconduct and drug possession.
OCS placed the children with the maternal grandmother (an ICWA-preferred placement), provided family services (housing, fuel, food), assisted with treatment applications, transportation, and visitation arrangements, but struggled with Caitlyn’s intermittent cooperation and periods of no contact.
At the combined permanency and termination trial, OCS presented Robin Charlie, a Yupik tribal social-services director, as an ICWA expert on tribal child-rearing practices; Caitlyn objected that Charlie lacked substance-abuse credentials.
The superior court found (1) OCS made active efforts to prevent breakup of the Indian family, (2) termination was in the children’s best interests, and (3) continued custody by Caitlyn would likely cause serious harm; it terminated parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Robin Charlie was a qualified ICWA expert	Charlie lacked professional/social-work and substance-abuse expertise; thus inadmissible to support ICWA likelihood-of-harm finding	Charlie had tribal cultural expertise, tribal approval, and relevant social-services experience; admissible under BIA guidelines to opine on tribal child-rearing and how substance use impacts it	Court affirmed qualification under 2015 BIA Guidelines; cultural expertise sufficed for ICWA context and limited testimony on substance effects was permissible
Whether OCS made active efforts to prevent breakup of the Indian family	OCS had procedural and communication failures (lost file, worker turnover, delayed applications, not monitoring inpatient program) that undermined active efforts	OCS provided substantial services to family and mother, assisted with applications/transportation, and was hampered by Caitlyn’s refusals, discharges, missed UAs, and periods of no contact	Court held active efforts requirement satisfied: OCS’s efforts plus the mother’s nonparticipation supported the finding

Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA expert must have cultural or professional basis; courts may consult BIA guidance)
L.G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 P.3d 946 (Alaska 2000) (ICWA legislative history and rationale for expert testimony to avoid cultural misinterpretation)
Diana P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 355 P.3d 541 (Alaska 2015) (likelihood-of-harm may be proved by single expert or aggregation of expert and lay testimony)
Jon S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (active-efforts requirement under ICWA and CINA rules)
Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (standard of review for active efforts is mixed question of law and fact)
Christopher C. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 303 P.3d 465 (Alaska 2013) (active efforts need not be perfect)
Maisy W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2008) (courts will not reweigh conflicting evidence where record supports superior court)