Emma D. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
2014 Alas. LEXIS 57
| Alaska | 2014Background
- Emma, a 21-year-old with long‑standing bipolar disorder (and possible PTSD), struggled to engage in stable mental‑health treatment, housing, or employment before and after her son Joey’s birth.
- Within weeks of Joey’s birth, shelter staff reported Emma’s inability to care for the infant and statements of harming thoughts; OCS initially offered services but Emma declined treatment and releases for providers.
- Joey was hospitalized in January 2012 with RSV, dehydration, and diagnosed supraventricular tachycardia requiring regular monitoring and medication; OCS took emergency custody in February 2012 after a team decision meeting in which Emma agreed to foster placement.
- OCS developed a case plan addressing Emma’s mental‑health needs (referrals to ACMHS and CHOICES, housing help via Safe Harbor, transportation, visitation), but Emma frequently missed meetings, visits (attended 17 of 64 visits), and appointments and sometimes gave misleading information to OCS about engagement.
- OCS filed for termination of parental rights in January 2013; after a trial the superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that OCS made reasonable reunification efforts and that Emma failed to remedy the conditions within a reasonable time, and it terminated her parental rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCS made reasonable reunification efforts | OCS failed to adequately accommodate Emma’s disabilities (bipolar disorder and possible FASD); needed more tailored steps and ADA‑style accommodations | OCS tailored a plan to Emma’s needs, repeatedly referred and coordinated services, and was blocked by Emma’s refusal to engage or sign releases | Court held OCS’s efforts were reasonable given repeated offers, referrals, coordination, and Emma’s persistent non‑engagement |
| Whether Emma remedied the conduct within a reasonable time | Termination was premature; OCS filed too quickly and should have allowed more time for treatment | The statutory ‘‘reasonable time’’ focuses on the child’s best interests and attachment needs; early filing is permitted if in child’s best interest | Court held Emma failed to remedy conditions in a reasonable time given Joey’s age, need for stable attachments, and Emma’s lack of sustained progress |
| Whether OCS should have obtained more intrusive court orders or forced participation | OCS should have pursued court‑ordered accommodations or more proactive service providers | OCS cannot force treatment; requiring court orders for uncooperative parents is impractical; OCS must make reasonable (not perfect) efforts | Court agreed OCS was not required to obtain court orders and acted reasonably in its outreach and referrals |
| Relevance of alleged FASD and need for different providers | OCS should have prioritized FASD evaluation and a different provider or individualized services | Initial assessments did not substantiate FASD concerns; OCS offered referrals to providers Emma accepted or declined | Court found no clear error in OCS’s approach; lack of evidence that FASD required alternative measures or that Emma lacked capacity to follow the plan |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (OCS must tailor reunification services to a parent’s disability; efforts need not be perfect when parent unwilling to engage)
- Chloe O. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 309 P.3d 850 (Alaska 2013) (review of OCS efforts and limits on forcing treatment for uncooperative parents)
- Sherman B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 290 P.3d 421 (Alaska 2012) (standards for termination: findings required and standard of review)
- Christina J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 254 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2011) (statutory ‘‘15 of 22 months’’ requirement is not an absolute delay; OCS may file earlier if in child’s best interests)
- Audrey H. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 188 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2008) (reasonable reunification efforts satisfied by referrals and offers where parent resists participation)