Ruby C. v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, Jaspar O. v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, S19535, S19536

Ruby and Jaspar are the parents of Denver and Celia, who are Indian children under ICWA. 1
OCS became involved because of longstanding parental substance abuse, neglect, and prior child welfare cases involving Jaspar. 2
OCS removed Denver in June 2022 after an eviction revealed severe unsanitary conditions and the parents had left the children with a neighbor; Denver later tested positive for opioids. 3
Celia was born in November 2022 testing positive for opioids, amphetamines, and methamphetamine, and OCS took custody after hospital staff reported Ruby appeared impaired. 4
OCS repeatedly attempted to case plan, contact, and locate the parents while also arranging visitation, services, relative placements, school enrollment, and tribal enrollment for the children. 5
After a 2025 termination trial, the superior court terminated both parents' rights, finding active efforts, likelihood of serious harm from continued custody, and best interests by the required standards. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCS made active efforts under ICWA 7	Ruby and Jaspar said OCS was passive, untailored, and insufficient, especially during their absences.	OCS said it made thorough, repeated, individualized reunification efforts and child-focused services.	The court held OCS made active efforts. 8
Whether Ruby's custody would likely cause serious harm 9	Ruby said recent sobriety and treatment defeated any finding of likely harm.	OCS said her long substance-abuse history and recent drug exposure of the children showed likely harm.	The court held likely serious harm was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 10
Whether termination was in the children's best interests 11	Ruby said her treatment progress showed reunification was soon possible.	OCS said the children needed permanency after years in care and more delay was unreasonable.	The court held termination was in the children's best interests. 12

Doe v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 272 P.3d 1014 (Alaska 2012) (mixed question standard for active efforts and likely harm review 13)
State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs. v. Cissy A., 513 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2022) (ICWA likely-harm review and citation to J.A. standard 14)
Mona J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 511 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2022) (active efforts evaluated as a whole; parent disengagement may matter 15)
Sylvia L. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska 2015) (ICWA active efforts, likely harm, and termination standards 16)
Clark J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 483 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2021) (active efforts can fail when later omissions are egregious 17)
Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896 (Alaska 2003) (parental history may predict future behavior in harm analysis 18)
Thea G. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 291 P.3d 957 (Alaska 2013) (best-interests factors include reunification timing, parental effort, and risk of harm 19)