Christina J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
2011 Alas. LEXIS 59
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Christina J. appeals the superior court's termination of her parental rights to Gideon, an Indian child, after OCS petitioned and a 2010 trial.
- Gideon was born in 2009; Christina has a lengthy history with OCS and substance abuse; Damian, Gideon's father, was abusive.
- OCS placed Gideon in emergency custody with Damian's mother in Venetie; adoption became a concurrent goal in 2009 and sole goal by November.
- Christina repeatedly failed to complete long-term treatment (Level III.3) and instead entered a 28-day Ralph Perdue program, which the court deemed insufficient.
- Experts linked Christina's substance abuse and domestic violence history to risks to Gideon; the court found ongoing risk and harm if returned to Christina.
- The trial court found that OCS had made active efforts to reunify but Christina had not remedied the conditions placing Gideon at risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Christina remedy the conduct placing Gideon at risk within a reasonable time? | Christina argues she remedied substance abuse and ended domestic violence with Damian. | OCS's efforts and Christina's failure to engage show no reasonable remedy within time. | No; Christina did not remedy within a reasonable time; termination affirmed. |
| Did OCS make active efforts to reunify under ICWA? | Christina contends efforts were passive and focused on Damian. | OCS actively coordinated assessments, placements, travel, and visitation to aid reunification. | Yes; OCS made active efforts. |
| Would Gideon suffer substantial emotional or physical damage if returned to Christina? | Christina argues evidence does not show imminent harm if she is sober and separated from Damian. | Record shows ongoing risk due to history of abuse, neglect, and relapse potential. | Yes; Gideon would be at substantial risk if returned. |
| Is termination of parental rights in Gideon's best interests? | Gideon should be allowed to remain with foster or relatives and reunification could occur with treatment. | Best interests favored stability and permanence via termination and adoption. | Yes; termination is in Gideon's best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maisy W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 175 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2008) (active efforts standard and timing considerations in termination)
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (consideration of relapse and parenting history in remedy analysis)
- C.J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 18 P.3d 1214 (Alaska 2001) (expert testimony adequacy and non-necessity of addressing Native issues)
- Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (standards for reviewing active efforts and clear error in factual findings)
- A.A. v. State, Dep't of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (definition and scope of active efforts under ICWA)