Roy S. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, 278 P.3d 886

Background

Jade is Roy and Sheila's biological daughter and an Indian child under ICWA; prior reports of drug abuse and neglect in the family preceded Jade’s birth in 2004.
OCS removed Jade and her siblings in July 2008 due to ongoing parental drug use and neglect; Jade was in generally good health but with severe dental issues.
Roy and Sheila lived out of state or were largely unreachable for extended periods after removal; both faced treatment attempts and ongoing noncompliance with case plans.
Jade has lived in five placements since July 2008; initial relative placements fell through due to background checks or ICPC delays, leading to placement with the Mackenzies in 2009.
The superior court repeatedly approved Jade’s placement with the Mackenzies while considering ICWA placement preferences and later found good cause to deviate from those preferences to preserve Jade’s bond with her current foster family.
Dr. Laura Jones, the State’s expert, opined that moving Jade from the Mackenzies could cause significant emotional harm and delay bonding with new caregivers, influencing the termination and placement decisions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCS made active efforts to prevent breakup of the Indian family	Roy argues OCS failed to actively place Jade and to engage parents in remedial steps.	OCS contends it actively pursued placement and parent progress despite parental evasion.	OCS made active efforts; parents’ cooperation was limited but efforts were ongoing.
Whether termination of parental rights was in Jade's best interests	Roy asserts prolonged parental bonds and potential for reunification outweigh termination.	State presented evidence of persistent parental noncompliance and harm from prolonged absence; best interests favor termination.	Termination is in Jade’s best interests based on bond with current caregivers and risk of harm from ongoing absence.
Whether there was good cause to deviate from ICWA placement preferences	Roy contends deviation from ICWA placement preferences was unwarranted.	The State argues deviation was justified to maintain Jade’s bond with the Mackenzies and avoid emotional harm.	There was good cause to deviate from ICWA placement preferences.
Whether OCS complied with ICWA placement requirements in a timely, adequate manner	Roy claims ICWA placement procedures were inadequately pursued, particularly with Donna and Delia.	OCS argues compliance was ongoing and that proximity to home supported foster care decisions.	OCS failed to fully meet timely ICWA compliance in initial placements, but post-2009 actions supported continued placement given the best interests and bond considerations.

Key Cases Cited

S.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 42 P.3d 1119 (Alaska 2002) (active efforts standard and elements of CINA proceedings)
David S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 270 P.3d 767 (Alaska 2012) (ICWA and active efforts considerations in termination)
L.G. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 P.3d 946 (Alaska 2000) (bond and placement considerations in CINA cases)
In re Adoption of F.H., 851 P.2d 1361 (Alaska 1993) (role of bonds and permanency in foster care)
S.S.M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 3 P.3d 342 (Alaska 2000) (best interests and permanency considerations)
C.L. v. P.C.S., 17 P.3d 769 (Alaska 2001) (ICWA placement and related standards)
Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (incarceration as factor in active efforts)
Dashiell R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (permanence and attachment considerations in ICWA cases)
A.A. v. State, Dep't of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (bond evidence and placement decisions in CINA)