Christopher C. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
303 P.3d 465
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Christopher and Therese C. have six children; four (Eric, Cal, Zander, Chris) are Indian children under ICWA subject to proceedings.
- OCS involvement began pre-2010 due to alleged substance abuse and neglect; multiple investigations, custody actions, and services offered.
- Cal, Eric, and Zander were placed with foster parents Innis and Olech; Chris born in 2010 was placed in foster care in Fairbanks.
- July 2010: OCS removed four children due to filthy home, neglect, and health concerns; attempted reunification plans followed by intensive parenting and treatment efforts.
- OCS shifted to a hands-on, model-based parenting program in 2010–2012 after evaluations showing parental deficits; by 2012 the court terminated parental rights.
- The superior court terminated Christopher’s and Therese’s parental rights after finding failures to remedy endangering conduct, active OCS efforts, likelihood of harm, and that termination served the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remedy of conduct leading to termination | Christopher failed to remedy endangering conduct | OCS had active efforts and remediation was incomplete | Supported by clear and convincing evidence |
| OCS active efforts to prevent breakup | OCS did not adequately assist family pre-2010 | OCS made extensive active efforts post-2010 | OCS made active efforts to reunify despite unsuccessful outcomes |
| Likely harm if returned to custody | Parents would provide safe care | Evidence of ongoing risk due to parenting deficits and sobriety issues | Return would likely cause serious emotional/physical harm; finding sustained |
| Best interests of the children | Maintain family unity and Native cultural ties | Lack of parental capability and need for permanency | Termination was in the children's best interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (affirms standard for evaluating best interests and remedy timelines)
- Sherry R. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2003) (sobriety duration insufficient to show timely remediation)
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (longer sobriety required to demonstrate remedy of addiction)
- Dale H. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 235 P.3d 203 (Alaska 2010) (active efforts framework; cross-cutting analysis of remediation and harm)
- Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (active vs passive efforts; holistic view of state efforts)
- A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (case law on active efforts and remediation)