Sam M. v. Department of Health & Social Services , Office of Children's Services
442 P.3d 731
Alaska2019Background
- Sam M. (father) and Julia J. (mother) are Lane J.'s biological parents; Lane is an Indian child under ICWA and has been in OCS custody since August 2016 due to Julia's methamphetamine use and neglect. Lane is autistic and placed with her maternal aunt, who seeks to adopt her.
- Sam had limited earlier contact with Lane and significant mental-health, substance-abuse, PTSD, seizure, and intellectual-functioning issues; he was receiving services at Dena'ina Wellness Center before and during OCS involvement.
- OCS developed a reunification plan: supervised visitation, referrals to continue mental-health/substance treatment, parenting classes, and a potential placement/home study with Sam’s father. Progress was observed but visits were infrequent due to Sam’s transportation and functional limits.
- In April 2017 Sam’s counselor reported that Sam had sent/received nude photos with a 16-year-old; OCS paid for and referred Sam for a psychological/sex-offender/parenting evaluation with Dr. Paul Turner.
- Dr. Turner’s evaluation revealed a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior (multiple prior incidents), borderline intellectual functioning, very low processing speed, and concluded Sam posed at least a moderate sexual risk to his daughter and recommended sex-offender treatment; OCS filed to terminate Sam’s parental rights soon after receiving the assessment.
- The superior court found OCS made active efforts under ICWA, concluded Sam posed a substantial risk to Lane, prioritized Lane’s need for permanency, and terminated Sam’s parental rights; Sam appealed solely arguing OCS failed to make active efforts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCS made the "active efforts" required by ICWA to reunify an Indian family | Sam: OCS’s active efforts ceased after counselor’s report; OCS immediately moved to terminate after Dr. Turner’s assessment and did not pursue further reunification services (e.g., timely sex-offender treatment referral) | OCS: It engaged in affirmative, case-wide efforts (case plan, visitation, paid evaluations); new, material safety information (pattern of sexual misconduct) made continued reunification efforts unreasonable given child’s need for permanency | Court affirmed: OCS made active efforts overall; Dr. Turner’s report presented unforeseeable, material risk and, given time needed for treatment and Lane’s need for permanency, OCS reasonably filed for termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Philip J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 314 P.3d 518 (Alaska 2013) (standards for active efforts and ICWA analysis)
- Pravat P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (no "pat formula" for active efforts; case-by-case inquiry)
- A.A. v. State, Dep't of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (standards for reviewing factual findings)
- Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009) (evaluate OCS's overall handling of the case for active efforts)
- Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 310 P.3d 943 (Alaska 2013) (child’s need for permanence may outweigh continued delay for parental treatment)