Lucy J. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
244 P.3d 1099
| Alaska | 2010Background
- Lucy J. appeals a trial court termination of parental rights to Jack H. and Carmen H., challenging four trial‑court findings while conceding the children were CINA due to abuse, neglect, and Lucy's mental deficiency; the case involves ICWA and active efforts requirements.
- OCS/Evidence showed Lucy’s long‑term substance abuse, neglect, and domestic violence exposure contributing to substantial risk of harm; Lucy repeatedly failed to remedy those conduct/conditions despite extensive services.
- The State showed ongoing, tailored reunification efforts over several years, including housing assistance, referrals for treatment, mentoring, and visitation supports, with Lucy often noncompliant or failing to engage.
- The trial court found clear and convincing evidence of Lucy’s failure to remedy the conduct, that active efforts were made to reunify under ICWA, that return would likely cause serious harm, and that termination was in the children's best interests; the court ultimately terminated Lucy’s parental rights.
- Lucy’s children have been in foster care since 2006 and are thriving in and bonded to their foster family, who wish to adopt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Lucy fail to remedy the conduct placing the children at substantial risk of harm? | Lucy argues she remediated abuse/neglect. | OCS showed ongoing failure to remedy and long‑standing risk. | Yes; trial court’s finding of failure to remedy was supported. |
| Did ICWA require that active efforts to reunify were made and proven unsuccessful? | Lucy contends active efforts were insufficient, especially given disability. | OCS made extensive, tailored active efforts considering Lucy’s disability. | Yes; active efforts were made and proven unsuccessful. |
| Was returning Jack and Carmen to Lucy likely to cause serious emotional or physical harm? | Lucy asserts insufficient proof of likely harm. | Trial evidence, including expert testimony, showed likely harm if returned. | Yes; return would likely cause serious harm. |
| Was termination in the children's best interests? | Lucy argues placement could still be in child’s best interests. | Children thrived in foster care and foster parents wish to adopt. | Yes; termination was in the children’s best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcia V. v. State, Office of Children's Servs., 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA best interests and expert testimony standards applied; evolving jurisprudence on child safety and reunification)
- Alyssa B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 165 P.3d 605 (Alaska 2007) (one CINA finding can support termination; relevance to remedy requirement)
- Wilson W. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 185 P.3d 94 (Alaska 2008) (active efforts framework; tailoring efforts to disability)
- In re Terry, 610 N.W.2d 570, 610 N.W.2d 570 (Mich.App. 2000) (reasonableness of services and disability considerations in reunification)