In re Dependency of A.L.K., L.R.C.K.-S., D.B.C.K.-S., 478 P.3d 63

Background

Two of L.K.’s three children (L.R.C.K.-S. and D.B.C.K.-S.) are Indian children by virtue of their father’s Northern Arapaho membership; ICWA/WICWA therefore apply.
L.K. has a long history with CPS/Department (multiple prior FVS matters), including services previously provided; in Aug. 2018 the three children were removed for alleged abandonment and the two Native children were placed in non‑Native foster care.
The Department prepared a case plan and made referrals (chemical dependency evaluation, UAs/hair follicle testing, housing assistance, parenting services, psychological evaluation); L.K. repeatedly refused drug testing and some services but attended visitation and sought limited supports.
At the dependency trial the juvenile court found the children dependent, made a finding that "active efforts were made," and found return to L.K. would likely cause serious emotional or physical damage; L.K. did not object to the active‑efforts finding at trial but later appealed.
The Court of Appeals sua sponte held L.K. invited error by asserting she did not need services and thus could not challenge active efforts on appeal; the Washington Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court (majority) reversed the invited‑error ruling, held the Department did not satisfy ICWA/WICWA active‑efforts (beyond referrals and a case plan), vacated the dispositional foster‑care placement, and remanded for immediate return of the two Indian children unless the trial court finds a substantial and immediate danger to return.

Issues

Issue	L.K.'s Argument	Department/Tribe's Argument	Held
Whether the invited‑error doctrine bars appellate review because L.K. told the court she did not need services	L.K.: she never affirmatively consented to or benefited from any alleged error; refusal of voluntary services does not forfeit the right to challenge inadequate active efforts	Dept/Tribe: doctrine could apply in some cases; but Dept urged not to rely on it here	Held: invited‑error doctrine does not apply; L.K. did not assent to, materially contribute to, or benefit from the alleged error
Whether the Department satisfied ICWA/WICWA "active efforts" to prevent breakup of the Indian family	L.K.: Dept failed to provide affirmative, timely, culturally appropriate assistance (beyond referrals) and did not actively help her access services	Dept/Tribe: Dept pointed to prior FVS efforts and referrals and tribal contact as evidence of active efforts	Held: Dept did not meet the active‑efforts standard (mere referrals and a case plan were insufficient; Dept failed to actively assist or overcome barriers)
Appropriate remedy for failing to provide active efforts	L.K.: vacate out‑of‑home placement and return children absent statutorily required danger finding	Dept: remedy should follow statute — vacate placement and remand for determination whether return would create substantial and immediate danger	Held: vacated dispositional order continuing foster placement; remand to juvenile court to return children unless court finds substantial and immediate danger to return (dependency finding left intact)

Key Cases Cited

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 196 Wn.2d 152 (Wash. 2020) (describing ICWA/WICWA purpose and protections)
In re Parental Rights to D.J.S., 12 Wn. App. 2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020) (department’s passive referrals insufficient for active efforts)
In re Welfare of A.L.C., 8 Wn. App. 2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019) (remedy: remand for return unless substantial and immediate danger shown)
In re Dependency of A.M., 106 Wn. App. 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (parental nonparticipation may bear on active efforts when significant initial efforts were provided)
State v. Henderson, 114 Wn.2d 867 (Wash. 1990) (invited‑error doctrine applied where party requested the challenged action)
Bob S. v. State, 400 P.3d 99 (Alaska 2017) (courts assess state’s involvement in entirety and whether efforts crossed passive/active threshold)