Duke S. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 433 P.3d 1127

Darrence, born April 2014, was removed from his mother Evangeline after positive drug tests and her failure to cooperate with OCS; he was placed with foster parent Siri in October 2014.
Duke learned of possible paternity in September 2014, proactively sought paternity testing, helped amend the birth certificate, requested visitation, and first met Darrence in December 2014.
OCS received multiple protective-services reports regarding Duke’s other children; these reports prompted a safety assessment and delayed placement of Darrence with Duke.
Duke was arrested in April 2015 and remained incarcerated until acquittal in April 2018; during incarceration he requested placement of Darrence with his sister (a licensed foster), completed self-initiated classes, and had limited visits with Darrence facilitated by OCS.
OCS never prepared a documented case plan directed at reunifying Duke and Darrence; the new caseworker (from Aug 2016) arranged some visits and correspondence but conceded little case planning occurred.
The superior court found Darrence was a child in need of aid (CINA) based on abandonment, incarceration, and neglect, and found OCS made reasonable reunification efforts; the Supreme Court reversed, holding those findings clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Duke)	Held
Whether Darrence was a CINA based on abandonment	Duke made minimal efforts, failed visitation, and didn’t participate in reunification plan	Duke initiated paternity/visitation, visited when possible, and no reunification case plan existed for him	Reversed — abandonment finding clearly erroneous; no case plan existed and visits/support occurred
Whether Darrence was a CINA based on neglect	Duke failed to provide necessary care/support	Darrence was in OCS custody with foster care; Duke provided what he could financially and sought visits/support	Reversed — neglect not shown; OCS had primary custody and Duke paid/support limited by incarceration
Whether CINA status supported by Duke’s incarceration	Incarceration and failure to make adequate arrangements justified CINA	Duke arranged licensed foster placement (sister) and left child with capable foster (Siri); OCS delayed/denied placement without adequately involving Duke	Reversed — Duke made adequate arrangements (Siri provided care); denial of sister placement not shown to be Duke’s fault
Whether OCS made reasonable reunification efforts	OCS attempted visits and contact, satisfied statutory duties	OCS failed to prepare/offer a reunification case plan or meaningfully engage Duke during incarceration	Reversed — OCS efforts were insufficient; lack of a case plan and minimal engagement were clear error

Sherman B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 310 P.3d 943 (Alaska) (standards for CINA and reasonable-efforts review)
Frank E. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 77 P.3d 715 (Alaska) (state’s duty to identify and offer programs before termination)
Dashiell R. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska) (reasonable-efforts approval where OCS maintained contact and arranged exchanges during incarceration)
A.M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 945 P.2d 296 (Alaska) (affirming reasonable efforts where incarcerated parent received treatment and OCS assisted visitation)
Sylvia L. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska) (statutory duties of OCS to identify, offer, and document reunification services)
Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska) (incarceration affects scope of OCS’s reasonable-efforts duty)