Opinion ID: 2046927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Were Active Efforts Provided?

Text: [¶ 24.] On December 2, 2002, the circuit court ruled that DSS is under no obligation to provide services to try and reunite the minor child with his parents. Six months later, the court ruled beyond a reasonable doubt in its final dispositional findings that, up until its ruling of December 2, DSS made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. We see no error in that ruling, as far as it goes. Furthermore, the court also ruled that the social worker continued to provide services to respondent father after [its] ASFA ruling. In fact, social worker Wendy Cummings testified that she made such efforts throughout the entire case, both before and after the court's ruling of December 2. The father argues that these efforts were far short of the active efforts required by ICWA. Indeed, the trial court did not specifically find that these post December 2 efforts constituted active efforts. The State contends that these efforts were nonetheless reasonable and active and points to the father's failure to cooperate with DSS as the primary reason that efforts were unsuccessful. [8] Whether DSS complied with the active efforts requirement of ICWA is a mixed question of fact and law. E.A. v. State Div. of Family and Youth Services, 46 P.3d 986, 989 (Alaska 2002). Because we examine mixed questions of fact and law de novo, there is no need to remand this to the circuit court for additional findings. The circuit court found that the post December 2 services were provided. The question is whether they constituted active efforts. [¶ 25.] Without question, between July 2002 and November 2002, the father's whereabouts were unknown. DSS could not be required to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to an individual who had voluntarily absented himself and could not be located. The father later admitted that he had been on the reservation and had not contacted DSS. At the end of October, he was arrested in the Rapid City area. Through the mother, DSS learned that the father was in jail. A social worker confirmed with the jail that he was incarcerated there on November 14. He was to remain in jail in Rapid City until February 1, 2003. The father called the social worker twice while he was in jail. [¶ 26.] On January 17, 2003, social worker Cummings met with the father in jail. Despite the circuit court's earlier ruling that active efforts were no longer required because ASFA overrode ICWA, Cummings offered a Family Service Agreement to the father. At first, he refused to sign it. He insisted he did not have any problem with alcohol. [9] As it had in the past, this latest Family Service Agreement provided that the father would undergo a chemical dependency evaluation and follow its recommendation and that Cummings would assist him with setting up services if he needed assistance. Before Cummings left the jail, both she and he signed it. [¶ 27.] On February 10, 2003, only ten days after he had been released from jail, the father appeared at a review hearing on this case. He was intoxicated. A later test showed his alcohol level to have been .206. He began an outpatient treatment program in March, but failed to complete it because he said he wanted to work full time. The record reflects that he continued to drink, despite having an AA sponsor and having attended AA meetings. In fact, he admitted to having two little sips the Friday before the final dispositional hearing. Under the circumstances, we believe that the mutual Family Service Agreement signed by the father and by the social worker on behalf of DSS constituted active efforts. When such efforts prove to be unsuccessful, they are no longer required. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d). [¶ 28.] Aside from not making the requisite finding of active efforts after December 2, the circuit court's actions complied with ICWA in every other respect. The court received a qualified expert opinion that continued custody of J.S.B. by his father or mother was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the active efforts DSS provided before December 2 were unsuccessful. It also concluded that termination of the parents' rights was the least restrictive alternative available, and that continued custody of the child by either parent was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. [¶ 29.] In conclusion, although the circuit court erroneously ruled that ASFA's aggravated circumstances eliminated the need to provide active efforts to reunite the father with his son after December 2, 2002, the fact is that DSS continued to make those efforts. Under ICWA, DSS was bound by law to make active efforts to reunite J.S.B with his father, but it was not required to persist with futile efforts. In re S.D. , 236 Mich.App. 240, 599 N.W.2d 772, 775 n. 3 (Mich.Ct.App.1999). Considering that DSS worked with the parents for several years, that J.S.B had been removed from their custody three times because of substance abuse related neglect, that the child has been in foster care for much of his life, and that both parents continued their debilitating substance abuse, termination of parental rights was the least restrictive alternative available and in the best interests of J.S.B. [¶ 30.] Affirmed. [¶ 31.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.