Doe v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
2012 Alas. LEXIS 1
Alaska2012Background
- Doe family of five children; ICWA applicable; OCS sought termination after prolonged state custody and parental dysfunction; father John incarcerated for sex offense; state-conducted active efforts toward reunification focusing largely on Jane; trial court terminated rights to three younger children (Trevor, Mathilda, Nin) but not older two (Preston, Adam); ICWA best interests and active efforts standards applied; supreme court affirmed termination findings.
- OCS presented extensive remedial efforts (housing assistance for Jane, visitation, treatment referrals, case plans, and contact with children) and noted John's incarceration limited his participation.
- John challenged active efforts and best interests findings; court evaluated active efforts in context of incarcerated parent and overall state involvement; best interests weighed permanency needs and lack of feasible adoption for older children vs. younger siblings.
- Trial court found active efforts satisfied under ICWA; court found termination in the best interests of Trevor, Mathilda, Nin; no reversal for lack of pre-adoptive placements; no need to consider ICWA placement preferences as part of best interests analysis; no explicit requirement to catalog every parental desire to maintain relationships.
- Parents appealed; Jane did not cross-appeal; court affirmed termination order as to three younger children.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCS made active efforts to reunify the family | Doe: active efforts deficient due to father's incarceration and limited contact | Doe: active efforts viewed in totality, including Jane's case, and incarceration does not excuse active efforts | Active efforts satisfied under ICWA (clear and convincing) |
| Whether termination was in the children's best interests | Doe: best interests not satisfied given parental ties and lack of pre-adoptive placements | OCS: younger children needed permanency; lack of pre-adoptive placements does not negate best interests favoring termination | Yes; termination in the best interests of Trevor, Mathilda, Nin affirmed |
| Whether ICWA placement preferences affected the best interests analysis | Doe: ICWA requires considering tribe/extended family placements in best interests | OCS: ICWA placement preferences are not part of termination best interests analysis | ICWA placement preferences not part of best interests analysis in termination proceedings |
| Whether court was required to explicitly consider John's desire to maintain relationships | Doe: Court should articulate consideration of father's ongoing relationship with children | OCS: statutory factors are non-exclusive; no requirement to separately weight father's desire | No clear error; court properly weighed best interests and remedial efforts |
| Whether lack of pre-adoptive placements invalidated termination | Doe: lack of pre-adoptive placements undermines permanency rationale | OCS: lack of pre-adoptive placements does not preclude termination where permanency is urgent | No reversible error; termination supported despite lack of pre-adoptive placements |
Key Cases Cited
- Dashiell R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (active efforts assessed in context of state's involvement as a whole)
- Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (state's involvement in active efforts considered in its entirety)
- Maisy W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 175 P.3d 1263 (Alaska 2008) (active efforts and permanency considerations)
- Lucy J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (ICWA placement preferences not part of best interests in termination proceedings)
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (parental intent and permanency factors may support termination despite ongoing efforts)