In Sam M. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services,[1] the supreme court reiterated that courts must look to the Office of Children Services’ (OCS) efforts during the entirety of a case to assess whether it made active efforts to keep Indian children with their parents. Sam M. sought custody of his biological daughter – who is affiliated with the Native Village of Kluti-Kaah through her mother – who was then in the custody of OCS. While Sam was taking steps to treat his post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse issues, and depression and working with OCS to assess the possibility of reuniting with his daughter, OCS caseworkers became aware of Sam’s history of inappropriate sexual behavior. After reviewing Sam’s history of sexual misconduct and a psychological evaluation of his ongoing inappropriate sexual behavior which led to concerns of him being a possible danger to the child, OCS petitioned for termination of parental rights. After balancing the need for the daughter’s permanency against the time needed for Sam to address his ongoing issues, the superior court terminated Sam’s parental rights. He appealed and argued that OCS failed to make active efforts to reunify him with his daughter. The supreme court reaffirmed prior case law, requiring OCS’s efforts to be evaluated across the entirety of its work with a parent, while making note of the importance for permanence and stability of a child which cannot be indefinitely postponed for his/her parent to correct issues caused by his/her own wrongdoing. Here, the court looked to OCS’s active efforts to reunify Sam with his Indian child, but noted the circumstances were materially changed after caseworkers learned of Sam’s history of sexual misconduct, leading them to pay for a psychological evaluation which alerted caseworkers to continued issues of sexual inappropriateness, and the psychologist’s determination that Sam was a possible danger to the child. The supreme court affirmed the superior court’s termination of Sam’s parental rights, holding that courts look to OCS’s actions throughout its time working with parents to determine if active efforts have been made to reunify and preserve parents’ custody of Indian children.
[1] 442 P.3d 731 (Alaska 2019).
