Opinion ID: 2590276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: viewing the entirety of the state's efforts without regard for the impact of delays attributable to ocs impermissibly lowers the active efforts standard.

Text: Congress did not require that reviewing courts consider the entirety of the state's involvement in a case to determine whether active efforts have been made; our court adopted this approach by looking to case law from other jurisdictions. [5] Initially, our court applied this approach under relatively narrow circumstances, where three identified conditions existed: (1) efforts had been made to address a substance abuse problem, (2) the parent had shown no willingness to change, and (3) parental rights had been terminated as to another child. [6] This court began applying this approach when the burden of proof was preponderance of the evidence, [7] but it has continued to apply it in recent cases, without discussion, even though the law now provides that active efforts must be demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights. [8] And the application of this rule has expanded. In two recent cases our court looked to the entirety of the state's efforts to conclude the active efforts burden was met without considering whether the three conditions existed, focusing instead on the lengths of the time periods of active and passive efforts and on the degree to which the parent showed willingness or ability to change. [9] Although our case law has evolved to take a more expansive view of the active efforts requirement, our legislature was unequivocal in identifying how delays in resolving child-in-need-of-aid cases can harm children. The legislative findings, set forth in AS 47.05.065, provide, in relevant part: The legislature finds that . . . . (5) numerous studies establish that (A) children undergo a critical attachment process before the time they reach six years of age; (B) a child who has not attached with an adult caregiver during this critical stage will suffer significant emotional damage that frequently leads to chronic psychological problems and antisocial behavior when the child reaches adolescence and adulthood; and (C) it is important to provide for an expedited placement procedure to ensure that all children, especially those under the age of six years, who have been removed from their homes are placed in permanent homes expeditiously. I question the trajectory of our case law and believe the sequential approval of orders terminating parental rights in cases where significant delays attributable to OCS go unexplained may inadvertently undercut ICWA's important legislative goals and effectively lower the active efforts standard.