PRAVAT v. State, 249 P.3d 264

Laotian father challenges termination of rights to three Indian children under ICWA; superior court found children in need of aid due to domestic violence and neglect and terminated parental rights; state made active efforts to reunify; findings upheld on appeal after review for clear error and ICWA/CINA standards.
Children Mark (2001), Jung (2002), and Reese (2006) have multiple health/developmental disabilities; injuries include static encephalopathy, behavioral disorders, and neglect histories; mothers Stella and Molly had substance abuse histories; Stella’s conduct included domestic violence incidents in 2006.
Father faced communication barriers (limited English, hearing loss) and scheduling delays; OCS efforts included hearings, interpreters, case plans, visits at Eklutna Center, and later Cook Inlet Tribal Council, with various providers.
OCS engaged in extensive services: hearing aids attempts, therapy referrals, parenting and emotion-management classes, cultural mediation, interpreters, and expert evaluations; eventual transfer of visits to improve supervision occurred in 2009.
Experts (Rose, Truitt, Collins) concluded father unlikely to safely reunify; Judge found continued risk and lack of remedy; termination deemed in children’s best interests.
Dr. Collins later suggested two-year horizon for parenting readiness; court deemed permanence and stability required now, not indefinitely postponed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ICWA active efforts standard was met	Pravat contends OCS lacked active efforts	OCS presented extensive, ongoing efforts across providers	Active efforts met; efforts crossed from passive to active.
Whether Pravat remedied his conduct	Remedial steps suffice; he engaged in services	Remedial efforts inadequate due to minimization of issues	Superior Court did not err; Pravat failed to remedy conduct.
Whether returning to Pravat would cause serious harm	No imminent serious harm expected	Evidence showed likely serious emotional/physical damage	Return would likely cause serious damage; termination proper.
Whether termination was in the best interests of the children	Reunification should be pursued; permanency delayed	Best interests require permanence now given risks	Termination in the children’s best interests."

Barbara P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010) (best interests and remedy standards for removal decisions; parental accountability)
Ben M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 204 P.3d 1013 (Alaska 2009) (necessity of showing progress and parent accountability; remedy standards)
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 framework; case-by-case analysis)
Tessa M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 182 P.3d 1110 (Alaska 2008) (permanency considerations and best interests in termination)
L.G. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 P.3d 946, 14 P.3d 946 (Alaska 2000) (evidence standards for harm and likelihood of change in parental conduct)