Thea G. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services
2013 Alas. LEXIS 2
| Alaska | 2013Background
- The superior court terminated Thea G.'s parental rights to Zach (12) and Abbie (6) based on unremedied substance abuse; ICWA applies, Tribe Kotzebue intervened; OCS made active reunification efforts over years; trial occurred Sept.–Oct. 2011; guardian ad litem and social workers testified, and Morrison (OCS supervisor) testified as ICWA expert.
- Thea has a long history of alcohol/drug abuse, domestic violence, and multiple DUI convictions; she repeatedly relapsed after treatment and custody of the children fluctuated between her care and temporary placements.
- Zach and Abbie were placed with Thea’s sister or with neighbors at times, lived with relatives during treatment attempts, and had a trial home visit that ended with relapse; Thea’s convictions tethered to their care and safety.
- OCS and the trial court found that Thea’s ongoing substance abuse posed substantial risk of harm to the children if returned to her; the court also found that ongoing reunification efforts were appropriate but ineffective given her pattern of relapse.
- The Tribe argued timing and adequacy of reunification efforts; the dissent argues the best-interests analysis lacked case-specific evidence about Zach and Abbie and bonds with Thea; the majority affirmed termination; dissent urged remand for individualized evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active efforts upheld by ICWA? | Thea argues OCS failed to provide active efforts. | The state contends extensive, ongoing reunification efforts were made. | Yes; findings supported by substantial evidence of active efforts. |
| Likelihood of serious harm if returned | Thea contends Morrison wasn’t a qualified ICWA expert and testimony was generic. | Court properly admitted Morrison’s testimony based on expertise in substance abuse effects and permanency. | Yes; evidence supported that continued custody would likely cause serious harm. |
| Best interests of Zach and Abbie | Thea asserts the court erred by not considering bonds and case-specific needs. | Termination to adopt would serve permanency and stability given ongoing risk and lack of remedy. | Yes; termination in the children’s best interests affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucy J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (ICWA expert testimony may be based on record and case specifics)
- J.H. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, 222 P.3d 841 (Alaska 2009) (best interests with need for permanence; relief if relapses continue)
- J.J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 38 P.3d 7, 38 P.3d 7 (Alaska 2001) (ICWA expert testimony; case-specific factors required)
- Hannah B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 289 P.3d 924 (Alaska 2012) (permanency and bonding considerations in best interests)