Erin I. v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, S19593

Background

Kameron is an Indian child with disabilities who lived with his adoptive parents, Erin and Simon, and several adult siblings in the home. 1
OCS became involved after Greg assaulted Eliza and later returned to the home despite safety concerns, and the children reported fear of the siblings' violence and drinking. 2
OCS removed Kameron and Eliza in May 2021, Erin stipulated the children were in need of aid, and the Tribe intervened. 3
Over nearly four years, Erin completed some services but repeatedly allowed Greg and other dangerous adult children back into the home. 4
At the termination trial, experts testified that returning Kameron would likely cause serious emotional or physical harm because Erin minimized the danger and lacked protective capacity. 5
The superior court terminated Erin's parental rights, finding Kameron was in need of aid, Erin had not remedied the conduct, OCS made active efforts, return would likely cause serious harm, and termination was in Kameron's best interests. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Kameron a child in need of aid? 7	Erin said domestic violence was tied to Greg's illness, not her conduct.	OCS said Erin exposed Kameron to domestic violence and mental injury.	Yes; exposure to domestic violence created substantial risk of mental injury. 8
Did OCS make active efforts under ICWA? 9	Erin said OCS failed to help with Greg's housing, Tribe collaboration, and unsupervised visits.	OCS said it provided tailored reunification services and involved the Tribe.	Yes; the efforts were active and reasonably tailored. 10
Did Erin fail to remedy the conduct causing aid? 11	Erin said she completed many case-plan tasks and improved.	OCS said she still lacked protective capacity and kept letting Greg return.	Yes; she had not changed enough to protect Kameron. 12
Would return to Erin likely cause serious harm? 13	Erin said Greg was jailed and the risk was speculative.	OCS said Erin would likely again allow dangerous siblings back.	Yes; beyond a reasonable doubt, return would likely cause serious harm. 14
Was termination in Kameron's best interests? 15	Erin said Kameron loved his parents and wanted contact.	OCS said Kameron needed permanency and was thriving in foster care.	Yes; termination served Kameron's best interests. 16

Key Cases Cited

Barbara P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (completion of a case plan does not guarantee remediation; parent must gain protective skills 17)
Jon S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (termination findings reviewed for clear error and ICWA issues reviewed de novo 18)
Sherman B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 310 P.3d 943 (Alaska 2013) (clear-error review and deference to credibility findings; qualified expert testimony requirement 19)
Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (definition of clear error under substantial-evidence review 20)
Brad S. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 563 P.3d 610 (Alaska 2025) (only one AS 47.10.011 ground is needed for CINA adjudication 21)
State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs. v. Karlie T., 538 P.3d 723 (Alaska 2023) (interprets domestic-violence exposure under AS 47.10.011(8)(B)(ii) and clarifies misdemeanor conduct can qualify 22)
Sarah G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 264 P.3d 831 (Alaska 2011) (domestic violence in the home poses a significant risk to children 23)
Bill S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 436 P.3d 976 (Alaska 2019) (ICWA active-efforts analysis is case-specific and no fixed formula distinguishes active from passive efforts 24)
Sylvia L. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska 2015) (trial court may consider all services provided when assessing active efforts 25)
Burke P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 162 P.3d 1239 (Alaska 2007) (active-efforts analysis starts with the problems causing the CINA adjudication 26)
Demetria H. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 433 P.3d 1064 (Alaska 2018) (OCS may prioritize services based on the issues identified in the case 27)
Ronald H. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 490 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2021) (ICWA active efforts are tailored to the facts and circumstances 28)
Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 442 P.3d 731 (Alaska 2019) (active-efforts review considers the state's involvement in its entirety 29)
Joy B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 382 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2016) (case-plan completion does not itself prove remediation; bond with parent is not dispositive in best-interests analysis 30)
Charles S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 442 P.3d 780 (Alaska 2019) (case-plan completion does not necessarily mean conditions have been remedied 31)
Diana P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 355 P.3d 541 (Alaska 2015) (ICWA serious-harm findings require proof that custody is likely to cause harm 32)
Chloe W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 336 P.3d 1258 (Alaska 2014) (best-interests factors are nonexclusive and no single factor controls 33)