Viva G. v. State of Alaska, DFCS, OCS, S19589

Raleigh was born in March 2023 exposed to addictive substances, leading OCS to obtain emergency custody and later seek termination of both parents' rights. 1
Viva initially entered treatment but was discharged for rule violations and aggression, then missed 71 urinalyses, failed to attend assessments, and disengaged from OCS for about a year. 2
At the termination trial, OCS presented a substance-abuse expert and a cultural expert meant to explain tribal norms under ICWA. 3
The cultural expert, a tribal member and elder with law-enforcement and tribal-leadership experience, gave only generalized testimony about substance abuse, parental noncooperation, and child safety. 4
The superior court terminated Viva's parental rights, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that returning Raleigh would likely cause serious harm and that termination was in his best interests. 5
Viva appealed, arguing the cultural expert testimony was legally insufficient under ICWA. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the ICWA cultural-expert testimony legally sufficient? 7	Viva said the expert lacked case-specific tribal context and relied on general safety concerns.	OCS said the expert's qualifications and testimony adequately supported termination.	No; the testimony was legally insufficient under ICWA. 8
Did the testimony adequately contextualize Viva's conduct within tribal norms? 9	Viva argued the expert never tied her substance use and noncompliance to tribal cultural standards.	OCS and the GAL said the expert's statements about tribal expectations and child safety were enough.	No; the court required specific cultural grounding, not just a tribal view that the conduct was harmful. 10

State v. Cissy A., 513 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2022) (ICWA cultural testimony must provide meaningful tribal context, not generic safety platitudes 11)
Walker E. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 480 P.3d 598 (Alaska 2021) (whether ICWA findings and expert testimony satisfy the statute is a legal question reviewed de novo 12)
Marcia V. v. State, 201 P.3d 496 (Alaska 2009) (ICWA requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that returning the child likely will cause serious harm 13)
E.A. v. State Div. of Fam. and Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986 (Alaska 2002) (ICWA expert-testimony sufficiency is a pure legal question 14)
Pravat P. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011) (appellate courts defer to clear-error review for factual determinations and credibility findings 15)
Lucy J. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099 (Alaska 2010) (issues not raised below are generally reviewed only for plain error 16)