Chloe v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
2014 Alas. LEXIS 215
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Mother (Chloe W.), a Tlingit and Haida tribal member, has a long history of mental-health disorders and prescribed-medication misuse; son Timothy tested positive for benzodiazepines at birth in 2010 and was placed with family then fostered by the Campbells.
- OCS filed an initial termination petition in 2012; the superior court denied termination then and ordered intensive case planning and monitoring.
- OCS filed a second termination petition in 2018 alleging relapse, continued medication misuse, refusal of recommended inpatient treatment, and untreated trauma/personality disorder impairing parenting.
- At the second trial, parties submitted a post-evidence stipulation that Chloe had been discharged by her treating psychiatrist (Dr. Topol) after suspected duplicate prescriptions; Chloe denied wrongdoing.
- Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Chloe had not remedied conditions placing Timothy at risk, that OCS made active efforts under ICWA, and (beyond a reasonable doubt with expert testimony) that return would likely cause serious harm; it terminated parental rights and found termination in Timothy’s best interests.
- On appeal Chloe challenged (1) reliance on the stipulation/ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) failure-to-remedy finding, (3) OCS’s active-efforts finding under ICWA, and (4) the best-interests/serious-harm findings. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chloe) | Defendant's Argument (OCS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stipulation / ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel erred by stipulating to Dr. Topol’s discharge and Chloe was deprived of effective assistance | Stipulation was permissible; court relied on a wide evidentiary record beyond the stipulation | Court upheld use of stipulation; ineffective assistance claim fails because outcome would not have changed and tactical choices are presumptively reasonable |
| Failure to remedy conduct placing child at risk | Chloe claimed symptoms (slurred speech, lethargy) had non-addiction explanations (dentures, Ambien) and she’d made progress | OCS pointed to repeated overmedication, pill-seeking, missed appointments, refusal of inpatient treatment, and expert testimony showing relapse | Court found ample evidence Chloe had not remedied conditions and affirmed failure-to-remedy finding |
| ICWA active-efforts requirement | OCS did not provide a workable parenting plan or permit full-time in-home demonstration | OCS documented repeated, hands-on, individualized interventions (transportation, supplies, counseling, Tribe coordination, parenting coaching) | Court held OCS made active, robust efforts under ICWA and affirmed |
| Serious harm / best interests (ICWA beyond-a-reasonable-doubt and preponderance) | Chloe argued bonding and cultural heritage weighed against termination; she can parent and has not harmed Timothy | OCS relied on expert testimony that Chloe’s untreated substance abuse and mental-health issues made return likely to cause serious emotional/physical harm and that Timothy needed permanency with caregivers he knew | Court found (beyond a reasonable doubt with expert testimony) return likely would cause serious harm and (by preponderance) termination was in Timothy’s best interests; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1974) (articulates two-pronged ineffective-assistance test used in termination appeals)
- Chloe O. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 309 P.3d 850 (Alaska 2013) (approves direct-appeal review of ineffective-assistance claims when record suffices and emphasizes expeditious permanency)
- David S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 270 P.3d 767 (Alaska 2012) (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims and CINA findings)
- Sherman B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 290 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2012) (standards for factual review in CINA cases)
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (discusses proving serious harm and weight of bonding/permanency factors)