Tuluksak Native Community v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS
530 P.3d 359
Alaska
2023

Background

  • Hanson, a 15-year-old Alaska Native youth in OCS custody, was removed from his mother and placed with a relative; the Tuluksak Native Community (Tribe) intervened.
  • Hanson later presented to North Star Behavioral Hospital after suicidal behavior; his initial admission appears to have been voluntary and without OCS initiation.
  • OCS sought a hearing under AS 47.10.087 to authorize placement in a secure residential psychiatric treatment facility (out-of-state) after North Star could not meet his long‑term needs.
  • Multiple hearings occurred with contested discovery, late waiver of psychotherapist‑patient privilege, testimony from a North Star clinician (Sabo), and evidence (including facility acceptance/denials) about available placements.
  • The superior court found by the required factors that Hanson met .087’s criteria and authorized out‑of‑state placement with frequent review; the Tribe appealed principally arguing misapplication of .087, evidentiary error, incorrect burden, ICWA placement preference failure, and constitutional defects.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Tribe/Hanson) Defendant's Argument (State/OCS) Held
Whether AS 47.10.087 applied (vs. voluntary commitment statutes) April S. and the voluntary admission mean .087 did not apply here OCS, as legal custodian, may seek .087 placement even if the initial admission was voluntary .087 properly applied; April S. does not require a different vehicle here
Admissibility of hearsay and expert-conduit testimony Court relied on inadmissible hearsay and impermissible conduit testimony (Sabo repeating others) .087 is a CINA placement hearing; hearsay and expert reliance are allowed if probative, trustworthy, and meet fairness; Sabo was a treating professional with independent knowledge Admission of the testimony and reliance on Sabo was not an abuse of discretion; evidence met admissibility standards for CINA placement hearings
Burden of proof for .087 findings Court’s comment that evidence “barely” met the burden shows it used preponderance Clear and convincing is appropriate given liberty interests; parties proceeded under that standard Court did not err; clear and convincing standard applies to .087 findings and the evidence satisfied it
Sufficiency of factual findings under .087 (gravely disabled, least‑restrictive alternative, treatment benefit) Insufficient record about out‑of‑state facilities and lack of produced records undermines findings Testimony showed serious mental illness, attempts to locate less‑restrictive placements, denials by other facilities, and that residential care would improve or prevent deterioration Findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence; no clear error
Applicability of ICWA placement preferences and required findings Court failed to inquire about and apply ICWA preferences before approving out‑of‑state placement ICWA applies to foster/institutional placements under §1915(b), but Tribe did not raise ICWA below and record lacks detail on tribally‑affiliated options Failure to apply ICWA was error but not plain error; no obvious prejudice shown on this record
Constitutional challenges (equal protection; due process) .087 as applied denies equal protection and violated Hanson’s due process Constitutional challenges were underdeveloped; Tribe waived or failed to brief; Tribe lacks standing to assert Hanson’s due process claims Equal protection argument waived for inadequate preservation/briefing; Tribe lacks standing to litigate Hanson’s due process claims

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Hospitalization of April S., 499 P.3d 1011 (Alaska 2021) (OCS cannot characterize extended custody as voluntary under AS 47.30.690; OCS must use .087 or involuntary commitment procedures)
  • Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally adequate standard for civil commitment)
  • Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1979) (procedural protections required before institutionalizing minors for mental health)
  • Cora G. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 461 P.3d 1265 (Alaska 2020) (statutory requirement for expert proof of mental injury requires qualifying the witness to give that expert opinion)
  • Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 442 P.3d 731 (Alaska 2019) (standard of review for factual findings)
  • Kiva O. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Social Servs., 408 P.3d 1181 (Alaska 2018) (OCS has a compelling interest in providing adequate medical care to children in custody)
  • Broderick v. King’s Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1991) (experts may rely on otherwise inadmissible material if customarily relied upon in the field)
  • Rollins v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 991 P.2d 202 (Alaska 1999) (due process requires adequate access to discovery for a fair hearing)
  • In re Hospitalization of Connor J., 440 P.3d 159 (Alaska 2019) (issues not preserved below reviewed for plain error)
  • Eagle v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 153 P.3d 976 (Alaska 2007) (issues not properly raised below are waived)
Read the full case