Main Menu

Taryn M. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

NATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Catherine Cole

In Taryn M. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services, 529 P.3d 523 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that (1) under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) must prove a caretaker’s unsuitability by clear and convincing evidence, (2) it is legal error to place the burden of suitability on an adult relative instead of OCS, and (3) an adult relative unwilling to abide by medical treatment plans is not a suitable caretaker. (Id. at 530–533). A young girl with a severe congenital disease needed a bone transplant. (Id. at 526). Post-transplant, OCS planned to return her to a family member, a cousin. (Id.). The cousin had agreed to serve as the girl’s caretaker. (Id.). Due to the cousin’s poor communication with OCS, her decision to treat the girl’s fever at home instead of going to the hospital as required by medical instruction, and inability to find childcare during the day, OCS placed the young girl with another family. (Id. at 528). The cousin incorrectly filed petitions for guardianship or conservatorship, and the superior court scheduled another placement review hearing. (Id. at 526–27). After losing in the superior court, the cousin appealed and argued that she was a preferred placement, especially considering ICWA’s policy goals. (Id. at 530). Based on OCS’s voluntary assumption of the burden at the hearing, as well as a prior decision in an unpublished case, the supreme court first decided that OCS should bear the burden of proof if a question of suitability arises. (Id. at 531). Second, it was legal error to assign this burden to the caretaker in light of this standard, but this error was harmless because of the weight of the evidence. (Id.). Finally, the caretaker’s unwillingness to follow medical direction in multiple instances showed she was unsuitable. (Id.). Affirming the decision of the superior court, the supreme court held that (1) OCS must prove by clear and convincing evidence a caretaker’s unsuitability, (2) shifting the burden to an adult relative is legal error, and (3) an adult relative unwilling to abide by medical treatments is not a suitable caretaker. (Id. at 530–533).

Taryn M. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

NATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Catherine Cole

In Taryn M. v. Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services, 529 P.3d 523 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that (1) under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) must prove a caretaker’s unsuitability by clear and convincing evidence, (2) it is legal error to place the burden of suitability on an adult relative instead of OCS, and (3) an adult relative unwilling to abide by medical treatment plans is not a suitable caretaker. (Id. at 530–533). A young girl with a severe congenital disease needed a bone transplant. (Id. at 526). Post-transplant, OCS planned to return her to a family member, a cousin. (Id.). The cousin had agreed to serve as the girl’s caretaker. (Id.). Due to the cousin’s poor communication with OCS, her decision to treat the girl’s fever at home instead of going to the hospital as required by medical instruction, and inability to find childcare during the day, OCS placed the young girl with another family. (Id. at 528). The cousin incorrectly filed petitions for guardianship or conservatorship, and the superior court scheduled another placement review hearing. (Id. at 526–27). After losing in the superior court, the cousin appealed and argued that she was a preferred placement, especially considering ICWA’s policy goals. (Id. at 530). Based on OCS’s voluntary assumption of the burden at the hearing, as well as a prior decision in an unpublished case, the supreme court first decided that OCS should bear the burden of proof if a question of suitability arises. (Id. at 531). Second, it was legal error to assign this burden to the caretaker in light of this standard, but this error was harmless because of the weight of the evidence. (Id.). Finally, the caretaker’s unwillingness to follow medical direction in multiple instances showed she was unsuitable. (Id.). Affirming the decision of the superior court, the supreme court held that (1) OCS must prove by clear and convincing evidence a caretaker’s unsuitability, (2) shifting the burden to an adult relative is legal error, and (3) an adult relative unwilling to abide by medical treatments is not a suitable caretaker. (Id. at 530–533).