Trisha D. v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, S17696

Mother (Trisha) is a member of the Native Village of Ambler; three younger daughters (Anne, Violet, Charlotte) are Indian children under ICWA.
In Jan 2016 Trisha experienced a methamphetamine-induced psychotic episode; OCS removed the children and diagnosed serious mental illness (PTSD, bipolar with psychotic features) and substance misuse.
OCS developed a reunification case plan emphasizing psychiatric treatment/medication, substance assessment/screening, and parenting services; over several years Trisha made limited progress and was often uncooperative.
OCS arranged evaluations, referrals, supervised visits, transportation assistance, and a July 2019 integrated mental-health/substance assessment; a recommendation for an enhanced psychological evaluation was orally made but not included in the written report provided to Trisha.
Superior Court terminated Trisha’s parental rights under AS 47.10.011(11) and ICWA, finding (unrebutted) that her untreated delusions/paranoia placed the children at substantial risk; the court also found OCS made active efforts and deemed social worker Jaime Browning an ICWA-qualified expert despite limited tribe-specific cultural expertise.
Trisha appealed only two rulings: (1) the finding that OCS made active efforts, and (2) the court’s reliance on Browning as an ICWA-qualified expert.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCS made "active efforts" under ICWA to prevent breakup of the Indian family	Trisha: OCS failed to notify her of need for an enhanced psychological evaluation after the July 2019 assessment, so OCS did not satisfy active-efforts requirement	State/OCS: OCS provided intensive, ongoing reunification services over several years; any single lapse during trial does not negate overall active efforts, especially given mother’s long-standing noncooperation	Court: Affirmed OCS made active efforts; one omission during trial did not overcome multi-year active involvement and mother’s resistance to treatment
Whether Jaime Browning was a "qualified expert witness" under ICWA	Trisha: Browning disclaimed expertise in the specific tribal culture (Ambler) and therefore could not satisfy ICWA’s expert requirement to address prevailing tribal social/cultural standards	State/OCS: Browning had advanced child-welfare expertise; here the basis for termination was severe, untreated mental illness unrelated to tribal cultural norms, so tribe-specific expertise was not required	Court: Browning qualified; because the severe mental illness plainly endangered the children, lack of tribe-specific cultural expertise did not make her testimony inadequate under ICWA (April S. discussed but distinguishable)

Philip J. v. State, 314 P.3d 518 (Alaska 2013) (standard of review for active-efforts mixed question)
Eva H. v. State, 436 P.3d 1050 (Alaska 2019) (ICWA expert witness requirements and de novo review of legal questions)
April S. v. State, 467 P.3d 1091 (Alaska 2020) (expert without tribe-specific cultural knowledge may suffice where mental-health risk is obvious; cautions about cultural information)
Lucy J. v. State, 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (active efforts defined; case-by-case inquiry)
Pravat P. v. State, 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (active efforts need not be perfect; threshold between passive and active)
Sylvia L. v. State, 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska 2015) (failed attempts may qualify when parent’s evasive conduct renders services impracticable)
Diana P. v. State, 355 P.3d 541 (Alaska 2015) (ICWA requires proof that continued custody likely to result in serious harm and that parental conduct is unlikely to change)
Marcia V. v. State, 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska 2009) (expert cultural familiarity not always required for termination when grounds are unrelated to culture)