Main Menu

Anton K. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

NATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Melinda Xiong

In Anton K. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services, 554 P.3d 456 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court upheld the termination of parental rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), after finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) had made sufficient active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. (Id. at 465). Two children were removed from their parents’ custody due to reports of abuse, neglect, and exposure to domestic violence. (Id. at 460). OCS took custody of the girls and began developing case plans for the parents in an attempt to reunify the family. (Id.). While the mother eventually relinquished her parental rights, the father was arrested and incarcerated shortly after his loss of custody. (Id. at 460, 463). The father acknowledges that OCS made active efforts toward reunification prior to his arrest, but he argues that OCS did not make active efforts to prevent his family’s breakup while he was incarcerated. (Id. at 465). The superior court, in contrast, held that OCS had presented clear and convincing evidence of its active efforts to prevent the family’s breakup. (Id. at 464). Specifically, OCS had developed case plans for the father, worked to provide rehabilitative services to his family, researched potential placements with his relatives, and ultimately placed the girls with their maternal uncles. (Id.). The superior court noted that although OCS had not facilitated visitation between the children and their father, this was because his imprisonment had made visitation more difficult. (Id.). The supreme court agreed that OCS had shown clear and convincing evidence of “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” efforts to keep the children with their family. (Id. at 471). It, however, criticized OCS’s attempts to facilitate visitation. (Id. at 465). Despite OCS’s inadequate visitation efforts, the court articulated that OCS’s efforts, considered in their entirety, were active. (Id. at 471). Affirming the superior court’s order, the Alaska Supreme Court terminated the father’s parental rights after concluding that OCS’s attempts to reunify the family and its placement of the children with their uncles constituted clear and convincing evidence of active efforts. (Id. at 471–72).

Anton K. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

NATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Melinda Xiong

In Anton K. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services, 554 P.3d 456 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court upheld the termination of parental rights under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), after finding that the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) had made sufficient active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. (Id. at 465). Two children were removed from their parents’ custody due to reports of abuse, neglect, and exposure to domestic violence. (Id. at 460). OCS took custody of the girls and began developing case plans for the parents in an attempt to reunify the family. (Id.). While the mother eventually relinquished her parental rights, the father was arrested and incarcerated shortly after his loss of custody. (Id. at 460, 463). The father acknowledges that OCS made active efforts toward reunification prior to his arrest, but he argues that OCS did not make active efforts to prevent his family’s breakup while he was incarcerated. (Id. at 465). The superior court, in contrast, held that OCS had presented clear and convincing evidence of its active efforts to prevent the family’s breakup. (Id. at 464). Specifically, OCS had developed case plans for the father, worked to provide rehabilitative services to his family, researched potential placements with his relatives, and ultimately placed the girls with their maternal uncles. (Id.). The superior court noted that although OCS had not facilitated visitation between the children and their father, this was because his imprisonment had made visitation more difficult. (Id.). The supreme court agreed that OCS had shown clear and convincing evidence of “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” efforts to keep the children with their family. (Id. at 471). It, however, criticized OCS’s attempts to facilitate visitation. (Id. at 465). Despite OCS’s inadequate visitation efforts, the court articulated that OCS’s efforts, considered in their entirety, were active. (Id. at 471). Affirming the superior court’s order, the Alaska Supreme Court terminated the father’s parental rights after concluding that OCS’s attempts to reunify the family and its placement of the children with their uncles constituted clear and convincing evidence of active efforts. (Id. at 471–72).