483 P.3d 896
Alaska2021Background
- In January 2016 OCS removed three Indian children from their mother after reports of alcohol abuse and domestic violence; the children are members of the mother’s tribe. The father, Clark, was largely absent and OCS could not locate him for the first two years.
- The mother stipulated to OCS custody and later to a relative guardianship; OCS initially pursued reunification and at one point sought termination but abandoned that effort when parents consented to guardianship in 2018.
- OCS first reached Clark via Facebook in early 2018; Clark was incarcerated intermittently in 2018, completed substance‑abuse treatment after release, and reported sobriety from June 1, 2019. He began regular monthly contact with OCS only in October 2019, when OCS finally provided a case plan.
- OCS filed a renewed petition to terminate Clark’s parental rights in January 2020. At trial the superior court found the children in need of aid, that OCS had made active efforts to reunify, and that termination was in the children’s best interests, and it terminated Clark’s rights.
- On appeal the Alaska Supreme Court held that, although OCS’s efforts in the first two years were adequate given Clark’s unavailability, OCS failed to make and document the ICWA‑required "active efforts" in the second two years (roughly 2018–2020), particularly after Clark consented to guardianship; the court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCS satisfied ICWA’s "active efforts" requirement to reunify the Indian family | OCS failed to make active efforts in either the first or second two years; it delayed a case plan, did not facilitate visitation or parenting services, and ceased serious outreach after guardianship | OCS made active efforts toward the mother and children in the first two years; attempts to locate Clark and other agency services support active efforts | Court: Active efforts were adequate in the first two years given Clark’s unavailability, but OCS failed to make active efforts in the second two years; overall ICWA active efforts requirement not met; reversal |
| Whether OCS complied with the duty to document active efforts | OCS did not adequately document efforts; caseworker admitted recordkeeping lapses | OCS points to some documentation and testimony supporting earlier efforts | Court: Documentation was insufficient for the later period; limited documentation does not cure the failure to make active efforts |
| Whether the mother’s stipulations could be used to show active efforts toward Clark | Clark never stipulated and cannot be bound by the mother’s stipulations | State relied on earlier stipulations/findings as evidence of active efforts in the case generally | Court: Error to rely on the mother’s stipulations to establish active efforts as to Clark |
| Whether the active‑efforts failure tainted other ICWA findings (remedy, harm, best interests) | Clark contends that the deficiency undermines the court’s other ICWA determinations | State argues other findings stand independently | Court: Because the active‑efforts failure is dispositive, the court reversed and remanded without resolving whether other findings were tainted |
Key Cases Cited
- Jude M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 394 P.3d 543 (Alaska 2017) (mixed question standard of review for ICWA active‑efforts issues)
- Dashiell R. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (upheld active efforts where the state focused on the available parent while the other parent was unavailable)
- Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (active efforts require caseworker to take the parent through steps of the plan)
- Sylvia L. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska 2015) (failed contact attempts may qualify as active efforts when parent evaded contact)
- Denny M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 365 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2016) (courts may consider services provided by other state agencies when assessing active efforts)
- Duke S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 433 P.3d 1127 (Alaska 2018) (services arranged by DOC without OCS assistance do not necessarily cure OCS’s failures)
- Bill S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 436 P.3d 976 (Alaska 2019) (recordkeeping and documentation of active efforts are required under ICWA)
- Maisy W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2008) (a parent’s unwillingness to participate is a factor in assessing active efforts)