Kyle S. v. State, Dept. of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
2013 Alas. LEXIS 134
| Alaska | 2013Background
- Jane, a 17‑year‑old Indian child, was taken into OCS custody after reporting physical abuse by her stepmother (Sybil) and repeatedly running away; she also had serious substance‑abuse and mental‑health issues and involvement with DJJ.
- OCS had prior contact with the family for domestic‑violence concerns; Kyle (father) did not follow earlier safety plans and testified he allowed Sybil back into the home after a court lifted a no‑contact order.
- Jane ran away multiple times from kin placements; while on the run she engaged in risky conduct (drug use, contacts with older males, possession of weapons) and accrued juvenile charges.
- OCS placed Jane in residential treatment (Raven’s Way, then Hanson House) because of substance abuse and risk of relapse; Hanson House had phased family therapy that had not yet begun.
- The superior court adjudicated Jane a child in need of aid (AS 47.10.011(5)) based on habitual running away and behaviors while runaway, found OCS had made active efforts under ICWA, and expressed doubt about reunification before age 18. Kyle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Kyle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AS 47.10.011(5) is unconstitutional as applied because it allows CINA adjudication without a finding of parental unfitness | Statute permits State custody without showing Kyle is an unfit parent; this implicates parental‑fitness presumption and due process | Kyle waived the claim by not raising it below; statute need not be treated as requiring an unfitness finding at adjudication; termination standards protect parental rights | Waived for failure to raise at trial; no plain‑error relief; claim not considered on merits |
| Whether OCS made the active efforts required by ICWA to prevent breakup of an Indian family | OCS failed to make active, family‑directed efforts and focused improperly on services to Jane | OCS provided active efforts in totality: mental‑health/substance‑abuse treatment for Jane, DJJ placement decisions, and services to Kyle (counseling paid, facilitated contact) | Court’s finding that OCS made active efforts is supported by the record and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dashiell R. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA requires active efforts)
- Doe v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 272 P.3d 1014 (Alaska 2012) (evaluate active efforts case‑by‑case; consider State’s total involvement)
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (standards for waiver and plain‑error review in CINA cases)
- Beans, State, Dep’t of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Div. v. Beans, 965 P.2d 725 (Alaska 1998) (distinguishing facial and as‑applied constitutional challenges)
- Winston J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 134 P.3d 343 (Alaska 2006) (ICWA active‑efforts compared to reasonable‑efforts standard)
- Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 289 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2012) (terminating parental rights is a drastic measure)