HAMZA B. (Father) v. STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY SERVICES, OFFICE OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
Supreme Court No. S-19360
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
July 10, 2026
Superior Court No. 3PA-22-00108 CN | No. 7815
PATE, Justice.
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.gov.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Kristen C. Stohler, Judge.
Appearances: Michael L. Horowitz, Law Office of Michael Horowitz, Kingsley, Michigan, for Appellant. Jennifer Teitell, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Stephen J. Cox, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellee.
Before: Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices. [Carney, Chief Justice, not participating.]
PATE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
A father appeals the termination of parental rights to his son. The father argues that efforts to reunify the family by the Office of Children’s Services (OCS)
We affirm the superior court’s determination that OCS’s efforts, when considered in their entirety, were reasonable. Any deficiencies in OCS’s efforts to address the father’s mental health concerns do not defeat a finding of reasonable efforts, especially in light of the father’s unwillingness to engage in mental health services and his disappearance and subsequent incarceration.
We also hold that OCS made reasonable accommodations to address any language barrier. Under the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for OCS to assume that the caseworker was communicating effectively with the father without the services of an interpreter. Moreover, the father fails to identify any instance in which the lack of an interpreter hampered his ability to effectively communicate with the agency. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s termination of parental rights.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Background
Hamza B. is the father of two children, Aden and Tina.1 In 2013 Hamza and his children emigrated from Iraq to the United States. The children’s mother is believed to have remained in Iraq.
Hamza and his children eventually settled in California, where they lived for six years. During this time, California Child Protective Services took custody of Tina. Tina subsequently obtained a long-term restraining order against her father.2
In August 2021 Hamza and Aden moved to Alaska and lived in an apartment until they were evicted in June 2022. After the eviction, they stayed at a
Aden, who was thirteen at the time, told the caseworker that he had been abused his whole life. Aden described how his father would beat him, one time striking him so hard that Hamza would not allow him to attend school for a week while waiting for the bruise to disappear. He stated that his father had recently hit him with a golf club and showed the caseworker a bruise on his leg. Aden also alleged that his father had hit him with a closed fist so hard that it loosened a tooth; he then showed the caseworker the loose tooth. A forensic medical examination identified residual bruising on Aden that was consistent with some of the injuries he described.
OCS took custody of Aden and filed an emergency petition alleging that Aden was a child in need of aid (CINA) based on physical harm, substantial risk of mental injury, and neglect.
B. Proceedings
1. Probable cause and adjudication
The superior court held an emergency probable cause hearing in July 2022. Shortly after the hearing began, the court ordered a continuance to arrange for an Arabic interpreter after Hamza said that he was having difficulty understanding the legal paperwork and proceedings. At the continued hearing, the court provided Hamza with an interpreter. But, with only a handful of exceptions, Hamza communicated in English without the aid of the interpreter. Although Hamza explained that he might need help understanding legal concepts, he affirmed that his grasp of English was sufficient for him to understand the emergency petition he had received without interpretive services. The court entered an order giving OCS temporary custody of Aden.
The caseworker later testified that Hamza expressed “some communication difficulties with the language barrier.” To address that difficulty, Hamza asked the caseworker to communicate with him strictly through text. Subsequently, the caseworker communicated with Hamza primarily through text messages for a period of time. Despite the caseworker reaching out to Hamza every month to schedule an in-person meeting, Hamza would never agree to a time and place to meet, if he responded at all.
At a contested probable cause hearing in March 2023, the superior court provided two interpreters, but Hamza chose to communicate mostly without interpretive assistance during his lengthy testimony. When asked if he wanted the interpreters to “interpret everything,” Hamza responded, “I will ask them . . . if I need them. You know I speak some English.” Hamza told the court that he did not complete a mental health assessment because he was too busy working and did not believe that he had a problem.
Immediately prior to the testimony of other witnesses, the court asked Hamza if he wanted assistance with interpretation. Hamza responded, “If I need it,” and then confirmed that he would inform the court if he needed assistance. Hamza requested interpretive services only a handful of times during the remainder of the hearing.
Immediately following the hearing, the caseworker provided Hamza with transportation for a meeting at the OCS office. At the meeting, the caseworker provided Hamza with a copy of his case plan, and they discussed the plan for approximately 90 minutes. The caseworker informed Hamza that it was essential for him to have monthly contact with the agency. The caseworker later testified that Hamza communicated with him “just fine in English” during this meeting.
Shortly after this in-person meeting, Hamza stopped responding to his caseworker’s calls and texts, and he failed to appear at a subsequent hearing. Eventually even Hamza’s attorney was unable to reach him. In April Hamza simply disappeared without informing OCS or his attorney about his plans. The caseworker attempted to contact Hamza every month at the numbers he had been provided, checked online to see if Hamza had filed for public assistance, contacted Tina in California, and asked Hamza’s attorney for updated contact information — all to no avail.
Hamza did not appear for an adjudication hearing in September 2023. The caseworker testified that OCS had been prepared to hire an interpreter, but, due to Hamza’s lack of engagement, the agency “ha[d]n’t had a contact in which one was
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Aden was in need of aid due to abandonment.4 Specifically, the court found that Hamza had not engaged with OCS since early 2023. The court also found that OCS had made reasonable efforts by developing a case plan, making referrals, and engaging in “significant efforts” to locate Hamza after his disappearance.
2. Termination
After OCS petitioned to terminate parental rights, the agency learned in November 2023 that Hamza was in a correctional facility in Florida. Hamza would later explain that he had traveled to Florida some seven months earlier in an attempt to enlist then-former President Trump’s help with the CINA proceedings. However, shortly after his arrival in Florida, Hamza was incarcerated on charges of felony arson.
The caseworker attempted to contact Hamza through his attorney and by using an online inmate database. The caseworker eventually learned that Hamza had been transferred to a facility for mental health treatment after a Florida court found that he was not competent to stand trial on criminal charges. Neither the correctional facility nor Hamza’s attorney would disclose the name of the mental health facility to the caseworker. Nevertheless, the caseworker periodically called the correctional facility to see if Hamza had returned. The Florida court subsequently determined that Hamza was competent to stand trial. However, after Hamza returned to the correctional
The superior court held a termination trial in July 2024. The caseworker testified that Hamza had made very little progress on his case plan. Hamza did not complete a DV assessment or engage with most of the other services recommended by OCS. The only exception was the mental health assessment Hamza received as a part of the competency proceedings in Florida. The caseworker also described OCS’s efforts to provide rehabilitative services to both father and son, including helping Aden to get into counseling, enroll in school, and get a new green card.
Hamza testified telephonically from the Florida correctional facility. The superior court provided an interpreter, which Hamza used sparingly, explaining, “I will use her when I don’t understand, especially when . . . you guys talking about the law.” Hamza then testified in English. Throughout the entire trial, he asked for assistance from the interpreter only six times.5 Hamza was asked whether he understood his case plan and if he simply disagreed with the recommendations; he responded, “Exactly.” He further explained that he had “no mental issue.”
After trial, the superior court terminated Hamza’s parental rights. The court ruled that Aden was in need of aid due to abandonment6 and parental incarceration.7 It also found that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunite Hamza with Aden. Specifically, the court pointed to the case plan OCS had prepared; the efforts to communicate with Hamza, both before and after he was incarcerated; efforts to locate
The superior court also determined that Hamza had failed, within a reasonable time, to remedy the conduct that placed Aden in need of aid, that it was contrary to Aden’s welfare to be placed in his father’s care, and that termination was in Aden’s best interest.
Hamza appeals.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In a CINA case, “[w]hether OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family is a mixed question of law and fact.”8 “For mixed questions, ‘we review factual questions under the clearly erroneous standard and legal questions using our independent judgment.’ ”9 Factual findings “are clearly erroneous if a review of the entire record in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below leaves us ‘with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’ ”10 Whether a trial court’s findings satisfy the requirements of the CINA statute is reviewed de novo.11
Hamza’s sole challenge on appeal is to the superior court’s determination that OCS made reasonable efforts toward reunification. Hamza criticizes two aspects of the agency’s efforts. First, he suggests that OCS failed to adequately address concerns regarding his mental health. Second, he argues that OCS’s efforts were not reasonable because the agency did not provide an interpreter for communications with his caseworker.
We are not persuaded by either of Hamza’s arguments. With regard to Hamza’s first argument, evidence shows that OCS did attempt to address concerns regarding Hamza’s mental health. Any flaws in the agency’s efforts do not defeat the superior court’s finding of reasonable efforts, especially in light of Hamza’s refusal to engage in mental health services and his disappearance and subsequent incarceration. With regard to the second argument, we hold that the agency made reasonable accommodations with regard to any language barrier because, under the circumstances, it was reasonable for OCS to assume that the caseworker was communicating effectively with Hamza without the services of an interpreter. His argument also fails because he has not identified any instance in which the lack of an interpreter hampered his ability to effectively communicate with his caseworker.
Below, we briefly explain how mental health and interpretive services relate to the requirement that OCS provide reasonable efforts. Then we address Hamza’s arguments separately, explaining why we affirm the superior court’s termination of parental rights.
A. The Agency’s Obligation To Provide Reasonable Efforts Extends To Mental Health And Interpretive Services.
Before a superior court can terminate parental rights, it first must determine by clear and convincing evidence that OCS has made reasonable efforts to
In determining whether OCS made reasonable efforts, a court considers the reunification efforts “in their entirety.”14 OCS’s efforts must be reasonable “but need not be perfect.”15 “The court must first identify the problem that caused the child[] to be in need of aid and then determine whether OCS’s efforts were reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances.”16 A parent’s actions or inactions, such as a demonstrated unwillingness to participate in mental health services, “may be considered in determining the reasonableness of state efforts.”17 Additionally, “the reasonableness of the state’s efforts may depend on the interest in parenting expressed by the parent, with the state’s responsibility decreasing as the parent’s interest decreases.”18 The agency’s obligation includes offering family reunification services that “take[] a parent’s disability into account,”19 but this “obligation does not extend to
Our precedent also provides that OCS must take into account other limitations that a parent has, such as difficulty reading, and that the agency must make reasonable accommodations for effective communication.21 A failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a language barrier renders the agency’s efforts inherently unreasonable because the parent is unable to understand OCS’s expectations or take advantage of rehabilitative services. Thus, if English is not a parent’s first language, OCS must make reasonable accommodations to ensure that the agency is communicating effectively with that parent, which might include providing interpretive services.22 The question of whether OCS has made reasonable accommodations to overcome a language barrier must be determined in light of the circumstances of the
B. Any Flaws In OCS’s Efforts To Address Hamza’s Mental Health Do Not Defeat A Finding Of Reasonable Efforts.
Hamza broadly argues — without challenging the court’s factual findings — that OCS did not sufficiently address concerns regarding his mental health. First, he suggests the Florida court’s determination of incompetence24 and his conduct throughout the CINA proceedings raise the question of whether he was incompetent before he left Alaska. Second, Hamza argues that the superior court should have required OCS to introduce his mental health and competency records from Florida as part of the agency’s burden to prove that its efforts were reasonable. We disagree.
Our review of the record reveals that OCS attempted to provide Hamza with services to address mental health concerns prior to his departure from Alaska, but the agency’s efforts were substantially hindered by Hamza’s disinterest in his case plan, his disappearance, and his subsequent incarceration. Given that Hamza’s conduct limited the services OCS could provide, any deficiencies in the agency’s efforts regarding his mental health do not defeat a finding of reasonable efforts.25
OCS suspected that Hamza’s mental health might be interfering with his ability to be a safe parent, which is why the agency included a recommendation for a mental health assessment and identified a provider in the case plan. And OCS was prepared, if necessary, to provide transport for Hamza to any mental health assessment.
Although OCS did not refer Hamza for a mental health assessment, it was able to refer him for a DV assessment. We have previously held that “OCS has discretion to prioritize which services should be provided to a parent based upon the issues identified in [their] case.”26 Given the extensive evidence of domestic violence in this case, it was entirely within OCS’s discretion to prioritize the DV assessment over a mental health assessment. The reasonableness of this decision is further supported by the fact that Hamza made it clear from the beginning of the case that he was not interested in mental health services, nor did he believe he had any mental health problems. And given Hamza’s unwillingness to engage in mental health services, OCS was not required to be more forceful in convincing him to attend an assessment.27
Hamza argues that if he was incompetent before he left Alaska, then OCS would have been required to “remediate” his mental health situation in order for its reunification efforts to be classified as reasonable. However, Hamza’s behavior prior to departing Alaska did not demonstrate that he was incompetent. There is nothing in Hamza’s early communications with OCS that suggests that he was incompetent at the time, and he does not point to any evidence demonstrating his incompetence while in Alaska. The severity of Hamza’s mental health problems was not so obvious as to
Additionally, the determination that Hamza was incompetent to stand trial concerned his mental state at the time he was charged with criminal activity in Florida. It was not a retrospective determination;29 it does not imply that he was similarly incompetent during his time in Alaska. Hamza was subsequently deemed to be competent by the Florida court, and he does not suggest that he was incompetent during the termination proceedings. At trial, Hamza testified that, prior to leaving Alaska, he understood his case plan but chose not to engage, in part because he did not believe that he had any mental health problems. This further suggests that he had the capacity to understand and engage with his case plan while in Alaska.
Hamza next argues that OCS should have been required to admit his mental health records at the termination trial and that the agency failed to prove that it had engaged in reasonable efforts by not doing so. Hamza claims that without evidence of his mental health and competency records we are unable to determine on appeal whether OCS met its burden in this regard.
Although Hamza’s mental health records from Florida would have provided more details about the status of his mental health after he arrived in Florida, the records were unlikely to shed light on his interactions with OCS before he departed Alaska. The relevance of the Florida records is questionable given the limited services
Considered in their entirety,31 we hold that OCS’s efforts toward reunification were reasonable. OCS created a case plan for Hamza and held an hour and-a-half-long in-person meeting to discuss it. The agency identified services for Hamza, made a referral for a domestic violence assessment, and offered transportation services. OCS attempted to maintain contact with Hamza, going to great lengths to locate him after his disappearance and repeatedly attempting to communicate with him while he was incarcerated in Florida. The agency also attempted to track down Aden’s mother in another country and took steps to ensure that Aden’s needs were met and that his immigration paperwork was in order.
In light of Hamza’s demonstrated unwillingness to participate in mental health services, his disappearance and incarceration, and his apparent lack of interest in parenting,32 we hold that any flaws in OCS’s efforts to provide Hamza with mental health services do not defeat the superior court’s finding of reasonable efforts.
Hamza argues that OCS’s failure to use an interpreter to communicate with him hampered his understanding of the case and his ability to engage with rehabilitative services.33 He claims this failure precludes a finding of reasonable efforts. In support of this contention, Hamza points out that he used an interpreter during court proceedings when “there [were] some words or concepts where an interpreter was needed.”
Hamza’s argument raises concerns of significant public importance. Alaska is a diverse state made up of many different cultures. According to recent census data, 15.1% of Alaska residents speak a language other than English at home.34 Alaska is home to at least 20 different Native languages belonging to four distinct language families.35 Within this cultural context, and as a requirement of reasonable efforts,36 we emphasize that the superior court may not terminate a parent’s rights unless OCS makes reasonable accommodations to ensure that it is communicating effectively with
Despite the undeniable importance of the issue raised by Hamza, we are not persuaded by his arguments. First, under the circumstances of this case, it was reasonable for OCS to assume that an interpreter was not necessary to effectively communicate with Hamza. Second, he fails to cite any specific instances in which language difficulties prevented him from effectively communicating with his caseworker or meaningfully engaging in his case plan.
During early court proceedings, OCS witnessed Hamza largely eschew the help of interpretive services. A caseworker then had a 90-minute in-person meeting where Hamza “communicated . . . just fine in English.” Hamza never requested the assistance of an interpreter to communicate with his caseworker or raised any concern with the superior court about his ability to effectively communicate with his caseworker.39 And the only time Hamza expressed any difficulty communicating with
Significantly, Hamza has not identified any specific instance in which a language barrier prevented him from effectively communicating with OCS. This case was open for two-and-a-half years, and OCS made robust efforts to contact and communicate with Hamza. Under the circumstances, Hamza’s failure to identify even a single interaction where his lack of fluency in English created a language barrier is fatal to his argument.
Additionally, contrary to Hamza’s suggestion, his use of an interpreter during court proceedings does not support the conclusion that he needed an interpreter to effectively communicate with OCS. During early proceedings, Hamza explained to the court that he speaks English, but that he might need help understanding legal concepts. But Hamza did not use the interpreters for the majority of the proceedings, explaining that he would ask for help if he needed it. Hamza requested assistance from his interpreters relatively infrequently throughout the proceedings, most often to ask for help understanding legal concepts.
In light of the circumstances of this case, including the information the agency had regarding Hamza’s needs and abilities, we hold that OCS made reasonable accommodations to ensure that the agency was communicating effectively with him.40
Thus, we affirm the superior court’s finding of reasonable efforts.
V. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court’s order terminating parental rights.