Opinion ID: 2499414
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Visitation and remedial services

Text: Josh also argues that OCS failed to make active efforts on his behalf because it did not arrange for adequate visitation between Eva and himself, made little effort to assist him with his case plan, and left him without a primary social worker for six months. In describing what constitutes active efforts, we have said: Passive efforts are where a plan is drawn up and the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing it to fruition. Active efforts, the intent of the drafters of the Act, [occur] where the state caseworker takes the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be performed on its own.[ [35] ] No pat formula exists for distinguishing between active and passive efforts, and we have adopted a case-by-case approach for the active efforts analysis. [36] Although a parent's incarceration does not relieve OCS of its duty to make active efforts, it significantly affects the scope of the active efforts OCS must make to satisfy the requirement. [37] We have stated the practical circumstances surrounding a parent's incarcerationthe difficulty of providing resources to inmates generally, the unavailability of specific resources, and the length of incarcerationmay have a direct bearing on what active remedial efforts are possible. [38] Additionally, as discussed above, OCS's reunification efforts on behalf of the non-incarcerated parent are an important aspect of OCS's efforts towards the incarcerated parent. [39] The dissent believes that OCS's active efforts included a duty to actually help Josh remedy the conditions that caused Eva to be a child in need of aid .... [and] help him make `adequate arrangements' for Eva. Moreover, the dissent argues that once it became clear that remedial efforts with Robin would not be successfulwhich occurred by July 2009 ...OCS's active efforts should have turned to assisting Josh make adequate arrangement for Eva by investigating placement with Josh's family. The dissent acknowledges the superior court's finding that Josh did not make adequate arrangements to meet Eva's needs, but that the reality is that Josh could only fulfill this responsibility through and with the help of OCS. The dissent contends that once Josh requested OCS to consider placement with his relatives, OCS's active efforts obligation required it to contact Josh's family to determine willingness, to undergo home studies, and to assess his family's ability to address Eva's needs. We disagree because the dissent's analysis confuses the obligations of the incarcerated parent and OCS. While we agree with the superior court's observation that OCS's efforts in this case were not perfect, we cannot conclude, given Josh's incarceration throughout OCS's custody of Eva and the significant length of his current sentence, that the court's active efforts finding is clearly erroneous. As the superior court noted, Josh agreed OCS had made active efforts through October 5, 2009. Although he did not have a primary social worker for six months from October 2009 through April 2010, a secondary social worker communicated with Josh during that time and facilitated the exchange of letters and pictures between him and Eva. During that time, the secondary case worker asked Josh about placement with his family and he identified his sisters as possibilities; however, after speaking with his former case worker, she was informed his sisters were not viable options because they were known to have sex offenders in the home. OCS also developed a case plan for Josh during this period and kept him informed by sending him updates and court filings. The initial case conference notes indicate Josh was to participate in available programs while in jail and complete his remaining tasks after being released. Josh was never released from jail but was instead sentenced to 99 years of imprisonment. And OCS has no authority to require the Department of Corrections to provide any assessments, treatments, or classes to an inmate. Throughout this time, however, OCS made active efforts to facilitate Eva's reunification with Robin, the only parent available for reunification. The dissent argues that once it became clear that Robin was not an option, OCS had a duty to contact Josh's family to determine their willingness and ability to meet Eva's needs. However, the record indicates OCS did do that before the termination trial in October 2010. By October 2009, OCS case workers already had doubts about Susan's ability to meet Eva's special needs and whether Eva could obtain adequate support services in her native village. In July 2010, OCS attempted to facilitate contact between Eva and Josh's family; it sent a newsletter from Eva and phone cards to Josh's mother and sister so they could call into her therapy sessions. However, neither relative responded. In August 2010, OCS asked Josh's tribe about possible placements with family members; again, they received no response. Since 2008, Josh expressed his desires to have Eva placed with family members; notably, none of these family members came forward and expressed their willingness to care for Eva. In fact, when OCS asked Josh's mother, Susan, about adoption in September 2010, she said she would like to think about the placement.... But she never agreed to adopt Eva. Josh had the obligation to make adequate arrangements for Eva's care, which means he must identify placements with people that are willing and able to meet Eva's needs. [40] In this case, he failed to do so. He did nothing more than suggest relative placements, none of whom were suitable and many of whom did not even respond to OCS's overtures. Under these circumstances, we cannot say it was clearly erroneous for the superior court to conclude that OCS satisfied its duty to make active efforts to prevent the breakup of Josh's family and the termination of his parental rights.