Opinion ID: 2629007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was There Clear and Convincing Evidence OCS Made Active and Reasonable Efforts To Prevent the Breakup of the Indian Family?

Text: Lacey argues that the superior court erred in finding that OCS made active and reasonable efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. She contends that the court's active-and-reasonable-effort analysis ended when OCS relocated her to Pilot Point, and that the findings do not reflect that OCS effectively abandoned her after the relocation. Lacey appears to argue that OCS should have, first, determined whether there was any additional treatment available in Anchorage that would benefit her and, second, provided her with any such treatment. ICWA requires that before a court may terminate parental rights, it must find 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. [15] We have held that no pat formula exists for distinguishing between active and passive efforts and have adopted a case-by-case approach for active efforts analysis. [16] We have nevertheless recognized the following distinction between active and passive efforts: 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, is where the state caseworker takes the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be performed on its own. For instance, rather than requiring that a client find a job, acquire new housing, and terminate a relationship with what is perceived to be a boyfriend who is a bad influence, the Indian Child Welfare Act would require that the caseworker help the client develop job and parenting skills necessary to retain custody of her child.[ [17] ] In evaluating whether the state met its active efforts burden, the court may consider a parent's demonstrated lack of willingness to participate in treatment. [18] Courts also look to the state's involvement in its entirety. [19] In Maisy W. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, we affirmed a termination even though the state conceded it had not made active efforts during a three-month period. [20] We concluded that the entirety of the state's efforts after it first became involved met the active efforts requirement. [21] We similarly held in E.A. v. State, Division of Family & Youth Services that the state's failure to make active efforts during one seven-month period was insignificant in light of the extensive remedial efforts the state has provided throughout its involvement. [22] The superior court here concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that OCS made active and reasonable efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. In support, the court made these findings: a. [An OCS social worker] offered assistance to the family between May and August 2006 by providing wake-up calls, an alarm clock, transportation, assistance with benefits, food, diapers, household goods, bus pass, PIC referral, Head Start referral, and job applications. b. A Care and Safety Plan was signed by the parents on August 18, 2006, which required [Neal] to leave the home so the children could remain in the home with [Lacey]. The plan failed because [Neal] returned to the home. c. [Neal] was referred to urinalysis. d. [Neal] was referred to Clitheroe for a substance abuse assessment. He completed an assessment on July 27, 2007. He was diagnosed as cocaine abuse/rule out cocaine dependent and recommended for treatment. e. The children were placed with [Lacey] at Clare House on November 3, 2006. [Lacey] obtained housing for herself and the children as part of a second trial home visit. The plan failed because [Neal] returned to the home. f. [Neal] completed a mental health assessment with [a licensed marriage and family therapist]. g. [Neal] attended some anger management classes at Southcentral Foundation's Fathers Journey Program. h. [Elsa] was placed with [Lacey] at Clare House on April 21, 2007. i. [Lacey] attended counseling at Southcentral Foundation between November 2007 and May 2008. [Lacey] reported that she did not see the need for treatment and was only attending to get her children back. In November 2007, [Lacey] reported that when she regained custody of her children, she would reside with the children's father. j. Both parents attended parenting classes. Lacey completed a parenting class at Alaska Youth and Family Network (AYFN). k. [Neal] attended substance abuse assessments at Clitheroe and Cook Inlet Tribal Council (CITC) Recovery Services. In March 2008, CITC diagnosed him as cocaine dependent and recommended intensive outpatient treatment, but [Neal] did not participate in treatment. l. In July 2007, the children were placed with relatives in Pilot Point. [Lacey] was allowed to reside in Pilot Point and have unlimited contact with the children. The department created a physical separation between [Lacey] and [Neal], but [Lacey] chose to return to Anchorage in October 2007 rather than reside near the children. She reunited with [Neal]. (Internal citations omitted.) Lacey does not argue that these findings are clearly erroneous. Contrary to her argument that the superior court's analysis ended when OCS relocated her to Pilot Point, the court's findings note that Lacey received counseling at Southcentral Foundation through May 2008, after she left Pilot Point. OCS also resolved disputes between Lacey and the foster family in Pilot Point and paid for Lacey and the children to remain in telephonic contact after Lacey returned to Anchorage. OCS's involvement with Lacey and Neal from May 2006 until May 2008 demonstrates that OCS did not expect them to satisfy the case plan without assistance. Although OCS expected Lacey to become a more protective parent and to learn to appreciate the dangers of Neal's drug abuse, OCS attempted to help her develop the skills and mental resolve to accomplish those things through parenting classes and counseling sessions. The superior court found that these efforts were unsuccessful. It noted that Lacey and Neal remain together despite [Lacey's] assertions to the contrary, and that Lacey continued to be unable or unwilling to parent the children without [Neal] in the home. The court further found, after relying on Dr. Glass's testimony, that Lacey does not perceive any danger to the children related to the home conditions or parenting and has no desire to change. Looking at the totality of the efforts made, we agree with OCS and hold that the superior court did not err in concluding that OCS made active efforts to identify and provide remedial services that ultimately happened to be unsuccessful. We also hold, as OCS contends, that OCS did not abandon Lacey but continued to make ongoing efforts through the summer of 2008 by identifying a mental health services provider in the village, communicating with Lacey's counselors in Anchorage, and ensuring that Lacey kept in telephonic contact with her five oldest children even after she left Pilot Point. [23] We therefore conclude that the superior court did not err in holding that OCS's efforts were active and reasonable.