Molly O. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
320 P.3d 303
| Alaska | 2014Background
- OCS took emergency custody of three Indian children in January 2011 and initially placed them with their maternal grandparents Molly and Chuck.
- By August 18, 2012, the mother sought to have Molly joined as the children's Indian custodian, and the trial court found Molly had been the Indian custodian at removal but denied both Molly's intervention and the mother's join request.
- Molly argued OCS violated ICWA notice requirements and that due process was violated, but the trial court held any ICWA notice error harmless due to the short time between removal and revocation of custodianship.
- The case involved multiple Team Decision-Making (TDM) meetings, ongoing placement changes, and eventual removal from Molly and Chuck to other relatives; Molly was eventually deemed not the custodial guardian at the time of removal.
- On January 18, 2011, the parents informed OCS they did not want the children placed with Molly, effectively revoking the custodianship; OCS then had actual knowledge that Molly was not the custodian moving forward.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Molly’s request to intervene, holding any ICWA notice defect was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the parents’ revocation of Indian custodianship terminate Molly’s status? | Molly argues custodianship persisted unless notice or action reinstated it. | OCS actions and parental revocation terminated custodianship when the parents informed OCS they opposed placement. | Yes; custodianship ended when parents revoked it and OCS received notice. |
| Was OCS's failure to provide notice to Molly under ICWA harmless error? | OCS's lack of notice violated ICWA rights and affected due process. | Error was harmless given custodianship ended within six days of removal. | Harmless error; no reversal required. |
| Does Molly have entitlement to intervene or to counsel based on ICWA notice? | OCS's failure deprived Molly of rights to counsel and intervention. | Because custodianship ended early, notice issues did not prejudice Molly. | Intervention denied; notice error deemed harmless. |
| Whether other arguments (powers of attorney, inquiry duties) affect the outcome. | Powers of attorney preserved custodian status; OCS should treat Molly as custodian. | Revocation via parental notification negated custodian status; duties to inquire were not triggered. | No reversible error; arguments insufficient to change result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thea G. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 291 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2013) (ICWA notice and due process considerations in Alaska)
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (ICWA notice requirements and guardian rights)
- Brynna B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 88 P.3d 527 (Alaska 2004) (ICWA notice and guardian rights)
- Ted W. v. State, Dep't of Health & Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 204 P.3d 333 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA notice and guardian rights)
- Cook v. State, 312 P.3d 1072 (Alaska 2013) (state ICWA interpretations)
- In re Morris, 491 Mich. 81, 815 N.W.2d 62 (Michigan 2012) (notice standards in ICWA-related contexts)
- 177 Cal.App.4th 683, 177 Cal.App.4th 683 (Cal. App. 2009) (California ICWA-related issues on notice and custody)