Opinion ID: 2623107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State Made Active Efforts To Prevent the Breakup of the Family.

Text: In order for a court to terminate parental rights, the state must show by a preponderance of the evidence that doing so is in the best interests of the child. [14] In the case of an Indian child, the state must further show 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] and, by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that continued custody of the child by the parent . . . is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. [16] Under ICWA, an Indian child is any unmarried person under the age of eighteen who is either a member of an Indian tribe or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. [17] It is undisputed that Maisy's children are Indian children by way of their affiliation with the Native Village of Fort Yukon. Maisy argues that the state failed to make the required active efforts, pointing to the state's lack of involvement during the trial home visit and the fact that her case was handled at various times by six different department employees. The state argues that it made active efforts to reunify the family over the course of several years and in conjunction with organizations in the Native community. We have stated that a parent's demonstrated lack of willingness to participate in treatment may be considered in determining whether the state has taken active efforts. [18] Additionally, we look to the state's involvement in its entirety. For example, in E.A. v. State, Division of Family & Youth Services, we noted that the state's failure to make active efforts in a particular seven-month period was insignificant in light of the extensive remedial efforts the state [had] provided throughout its involvement with the family apart from that seven-month period. [19] And in N.A. v. State , Division of Family & Youth Services, decided in 2001, we examined state efforts dating back to 1987 and concluded that, even though the state did not provide the mother in that case with a particular treatment program, the numerous services it did offer her were sufficient to meet the active efforts requirement. [20] Because the state made sufficient efforts to try to help Maisy's family over a period of several years, we affirm the superior court's finding. The state concedes that it failed to make active efforts for three months in 2005, but the superior court properly looked to the entirety of the state's efforts from the time OCS became involved in February 2004 until trial in March 2007. In that period, OCS created and updated more than ten case plans for Maisy and her family; arranged for and offered transportation to UAs; provided referrals to and assisted with funding for alternatives-to-violence classes, parenting classes, and substance abuse assessment; arranged visitation; carried out home visits; coordinated Native-oriented services through TCC and Ch'eghutsen'; gave advice regarding phone service; and offered assistance with housing. The state tried to help Maisy even though she moved on several occasions and refused to give OCS her contact information, and even though she acted belligerently toward social workers and tried to have police remove them from her property.