Opinion ID: 836443
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: active efforts and 25 u.s.c. 1912(d)

Text: Under 25 U.S.C. 1912(d), the party seeking to terminate parental rights must satisfy the court, by clear and convincing evidence, that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful. This Court asked the parties to address whether, in order to satisfy the statute, active efforts must be concurrent with the instant proceeding and whether the efforts must be targeted at the child who is the subject of the proceeding. [1] I fully concur with the majority's holding that the relevant inquiry for both of these issues is whether the efforts made and the services provided ... are relevant to the parent's current situation and abilities so that they permit a current assessment of parental fitness as it pertains to the child who is the subject of the current proceeding. Ante at 876. I further agree that, although the text of 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) does not strictly require that efforts be made concurrently with the proceedings or be directed at the child who is the subject of the proceeding, the timing and the subject of the efforts are still relevant aspects in determining whether the requirements of 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) and (f) are met. Ante at 866-67. As stated by the majority, [s]ervices provided too long ago to be relevant to a parent's current circumstances do not establish by clear and convincing evidence that `active efforts' have been made.... Ante at 866. Similarly, services presented in connection with one child will not always be relevant in determining a parent's abilities to care for a different child. I also concur with the majority's explanation of the qualitative requirements associated with providing active, as opposed to passive, efforts and its rejection of a futility exception to the active efforts requirement. Ante at 864-66, 867-68. Although I agree with the majority's articulation of what 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) requires, I dissent from its application of 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) here because I would hold that, in order to meet this standard, the party seeking termination must present evidence of the parent's current circumstances and ability to parent the child who is the subject of the proceeding. [2] I would also hold that the party must assess and provide evidence of the relevancy of past efforts to the family's current circumstances and needs. Absent such evidence, I do not see how the party seeking termination could clearly and convincingly show that, as required by the majority, past efforts to prevent the breakup of the family are relevant to the parent's current situation and abilities and are sufficient to permit a current assessment of parental fitness as it pertains to the child who is the subject of the current proceeding. Ante at 867. In this case, the party seeking termination, the Department of Human Services (DHS), did not present evidence regarding respondent's current circumstances and did not assess the relevancy of its past efforts to respondent's current circumstances. As summarized by the majority opinion, the DHS did present ample evidence that there had been extensive past efforts by the DHS, and the tribe, that were designed to prevent the breakup of the family and evidence that those efforts had been largely unsuccessful. Ante at 868-70. The DHS did not, however, present evidence regarding whether these past efforts were relevant to respondent's and JL's current circumstances. The caseworkers who testified at trial admitted that, for a year and a half or longer before the termination proceeding, they had not observed or evaluated respondent, respondent's home situation, respondent's parenting ability, or respondent's interactions with JL. [3] Given that the DHS did not evaluate respondent's current circumstances or current ability to parent JL, the agency also could not have evaluated whether the past efforts of the DHS and the tribe were relevant to her current circumstances and abilities, as the majority purports to require. [4] Accordingly, in light of the DHS's failure to assess the relevancy of past services to respondent's current circumstances or ability to parent JL, I dissent from the majority's result. I would hold that it is not possible to determine whether the agencies' past efforts are relevant to the parent's current situation and abilities such that they are sufficient to permit a current assessment of parental fitness using the evidence presented by the DHS in this case. [5]