PRAVAT v. State
249 P.3d 264
| Alaska | 2011Background
- Laotian father Pravat challenges termination of parental rights to his three Native American-identified children under ICWA; the trial court found the children were in need of aid due to domestic violence and neglect, and that the State made active reunification efforts but they failed; the court found Pravat did not remedy the conduct, that returned custody would likely cause serious harm, and that termination was in the children’s best interests; the ICWA and Alaska CINA framework governed the termination analysis; expert and lay evidence supported the risk of harm if returned and the parents’ inability to safely care for the children.
- History of substantial neglect and domestic violence in the family, prior OCS involvement, and ongoing concerns about Pravat’s parenting capacity and cultural/communication barriers,
- OCS’s allocation of services and attempts to facilitate reunification (visitation at Eklutna Center, interpreters, therapy referrals, and court-ordered programs) were active but imperfect; Pravat largely failed to engage, and delays occurred due to incarceration and language barriers.
- Experts concluded Pravat likely cannot safely parent in the near term; the court found that Pravat minimized the children’s disabilities and did not remedy the underlying risks.
- The trial court held ICWA element of active efforts satisfied, and that Pravat failed to remedy, returning would cause serious harm, and termination was in the children’s best interests; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State met the ICWA active‑efforts requirement | OCS failed to provide continuous support | OCS showed extensive active efforts | Yes; active efforts met. |
| Whether Pravat remedied his conduct | He remedied many aspects of care | He did not fully internalize or address harms | No; failure to remedy proven. |
| Whether returning to Pravat would likely cause serious harm | No harmful risk if conditions improved | Risks persist | Yes; likely serious harm. |
| Whether termination is in the best interests of the children | Welfare could be improved with reunification | Stability and permanency require termination | Yes; termination in best interests. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (best-interests and remedial standards; failure to remedy core factor)
- Dale H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 235 P.3d 203 (Alaska 2010) (active vs. passive efforts; nationwide ICWA framework)
- Ben M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 204 P.3d 1013 (Alaska 2009) (service adequacy and parental cooperation)
- L.G. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 P.3d 946 (Alaska 2000) (evidentiary standard for harm and remedy considerations)
- Tessa M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 182 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2008) (permanency considerations and permanence timelines)