Main Menu

Miranda T. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Family Law
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Sarah Edwards

In Miranda T. v. State Department of Health & Social Services, 524 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2023), the court held that, before seeking termination of parental rights,  the Office of Children’s Services’ (OCS) efforts to reunite a child with his or her family pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) need not be perfect, but only sufficiently “active.” (Id. at 1119). Bishope was a seventeen year old Indian child who was adopted by Miranda T. in 2015. (Id. at 1107). In 2019, Bishope refused to return home to Miranda T. following her release from a juvenile facility, so a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding was initiated. (Id.) A CINA proceeding requires OCS to  show there is probable cause that the child is in need of aid, and then the court must decide whether OCS should take custody of the child, for how long, and in what kind of facility. (Id. at 1108-09). Here, Miranda T. agreed that Bishope was a child in need of aid, and she was placed in a residential treatment home. (Id. at 1109). Advocates for Bishope repeatedly recommended against her being returned to Miranda T.’s custody, and Bishope herself made it clear that she would cause grave harm to herself if Miranda T. was in any way involved in her treatment plans. (Id. at 1109-11). As a result, the superior court ruled that OCS should maintain custody of Bishope for a period of two years. (Id. at 1114). Miranda T. appealed this decision, arguing that OCS did not make active reunification efforts and that removal of Bishope from her home was not justified. (Id. at 1114-15). The supreme court held that OCS did make active efforts to reunite the pair, and that the initial removal finding was justified. (Id. at 1118-19). The court reasoned that placement in Miranda T.’s home would cause grave harm to Bishope and acknowledged that her situation as an older minor extremely opposed to reunification was unique. (Id. at 1119). Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that, before seeking termination of parental rights, OCS efforts to reunite a child with his or her family pursuant to ICWA need not be perfect, but only sufficiently “active.” (Id.).

Miranda T. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services

Family Law
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Sarah Edwards

In Miranda T. v. State Department of Health & Social Services, 524 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2023), the court held that, before seeking termination of parental rights,  the Office of Children’s Services’ (OCS) efforts to reunite a child with his or her family pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) need not be perfect, but only sufficiently “active.” (Id. at 1119). Bishope was a seventeen year old Indian child who was adopted by Miranda T. in 2015. (Id. at 1107). In 2019, Bishope refused to return home to Miranda T. following her release from a juvenile facility, so a Child in Need of Aid (CINA) proceeding was initiated. (Id.) A CINA proceeding requires OCS to  show there is probable cause that the child is in need of aid, and then the court must decide whether OCS should take custody of the child, for how long, and in what kind of facility. (Id. at 1108-09). Here, Miranda T. agreed that Bishope was a child in need of aid, and she was placed in a residential treatment home. (Id. at 1109). Advocates for Bishope repeatedly recommended against her being returned to Miranda T.’s custody, and Bishope herself made it clear that she would cause grave harm to herself if Miranda T. was in any way involved in her treatment plans. (Id. at 1109-11). As a result, the superior court ruled that OCS should maintain custody of Bishope for a period of two years. (Id. at 1114). Miranda T. appealed this decision, arguing that OCS did not make active reunification efforts and that removal of Bishope from her home was not justified. (Id. at 1114-15). The supreme court held that OCS did make active efforts to reunite the pair, and that the initial removal finding was justified. (Id. at 1118-19). The court reasoned that placement in Miranda T.’s home would cause grave harm to Bishope and acknowledged that her situation as an older minor extremely opposed to reunification was unique. (Id. at 1119). Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that, before seeking termination of parental rights, OCS efforts to reunite a child with his or her family pursuant to ICWA need not be perfect, but only sufficiently “active.” (Id.).