ICWA’s “Active Efforts” Focus on Parents and Indian Custodians, Not Extended Family: Alaska Supreme Court’s Decision in Betsy F. v. State (No. 7789, Sept. 26, 2025)

Introduction

In a decision of first impression for Alaska, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that the Indian Child Welfare Act’s (ICWA) “active efforts” requirement does not obligate the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) to provide services to extended family members seeking placement of an Indian child after the child has already been removed from the parents and placed in foster care. The case — involving the mother, Betsy F., the State of Alaska’s OCS, and the Louden Tribe (Galena Village) — arose from a placement review request to move a young Indian child, Albert F., from a longstanding non-relative foster placement into the care of his great-grandmother, Lana J.

The superior court denied the requested change in placement, finding Lana unsuitable. On appeal, Betsy argued that, under ICWA § 1912(d), OCS had to prove it made “active efforts” to assist Lana in remedying suitability concerns (for example, helping her make her home safe). The Tribe joined the legal argument that ICWA active efforts extend to prospective extended-family placements, though it maintained OCS had in fact done enough here. The Alaska Supreme Court rejected that legal premise, affirming the superior court’s decision and clarifying the scope of ICWA’s “active efforts” mandate.

Summary of the Opinion

• Issue preserved/review: Because the “active efforts to an extended family member” argument was not raised below, the Court reviewed for plain error but explained the result would be the same under de novo review; the question turns on statutory interpretation.
• Core holding: ICWA § 1912(d) requires “active efforts” only when a party is seeking to effect (1) a foster care placement that removes the child from a parent or Indian custodian, or (2) termination of parental rights — and the efforts are directed toward preventing the breakup of the Indian family understood as the parent/Indian custodian–child unit.
• Placement-review posture: Because Albert had already been removed from his parents and placed in foster care, a later request to change from one out-of-home placement to another did not trigger § 1912(d). Therefore, OCS did not have to offer or prove “active efforts” to Lana.
• Suitability finding: The superior court’s finding that Lana was an unsuitable placement — due to persistent safety hazards in the home and broader child-safety judgment concerns — was not challenged on appeal and remained intact.
• Clarification: The Court noted it was “peculiar” for the superior court to reference state “reasonable efforts” (AS 47.10.086) in an ICWA case, but the bottom-line conclusion was correct: neither ICWA’s active efforts nor Alaska’s reasonable-efforts statute required OCS to help an extended family member make her home suitable for placement.
• Outcome: Affirmed — OCS was not required to make active efforts to Lana in this placement-review context, and the denial of placement stands.

Factual Background and Procedural History

Albert F., an Indian child and a member of the Louden Tribe, was taken into emergency OCS custody two weeks after his birth in August 2020 due to maternal opioid use throughout pregnancy. With no available ICWA-compliant home willing to care for an infant with Albert’s needs, Albert was initially placed in non-Indian foster care and, by March 2021, with a nonrelative foster parent, Amanda C., where he remained continuously.

In January 2023, nearly two years later, Betsy first requested placement with Albert’s great-grandmother, Lana. After multiple home visits, OCS denied placement due to substantial safety hazards associated with extreme clutter (narrow and obstructed pathways, floor-to-ceiling stacks, impassable kitchen, precariously stacked items). OCS also raised concerns about Lana’s child-safety judgment stemming from a 2013 matter involving Betsy’s first child, during which Lana purchased plane tickets for the family to relocate amid an OCS investigation; the child was later found deceased out of state. The Tribe agreed Lana’s home was unsafe and supported continued placement with Amanda.

The superior court held a multi-day placement review hearing in mid-2023 and early 2024. Concluding by clear and convincing evidence that OCS did not abuse its discretion, the court found Lana unsuitable, citing ongoing safety hazards, skepticism about her willingness to prioritize Albert’s needs over adults in crisis, and broader concerns about decision-making regarding substance exposure. The court added that OCS was not required to provide “reasonable efforts” to Lana, as she was not a parent or guardian. Betsy appealed, arguing the court erred by not requiring OCS to prove ICWA “active efforts” to assist Lana in becoming suitable.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• ICWA primary text:
  • 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d): Requires “active efforts” to provide remedial and rehabilitative services “to prevent the breakup of the Indian family” when a party seeks a foster care placement or termination of parental rights.
  • 25 U.S.C. § 1914: Limits who may challenge violations to the Indian child, the parent or Indian custodian, and the child’s tribe — notably omitting extended family as challengers.
  • 25 U.S.C. § 1915(a)-(b): Establishes placement preferences prioritizing extended family and tribal-preferred placements.
  • 25 U.S.C. § 1931(a): States program objectives include preventing the breakup of Indian families, emphasizing that permanent removal from a parent or Indian custodian is a last resort.
• BIA regulations and guidance:
  • 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2016): Defines “active efforts,” emphasizing culturally appropriate, partnership-based engagement with parents, Indian custodians, tribes, and extended family members — in service of preserving/reunifying the core family unit.
  • 80 Fed. Reg. 10,146, 10,150 (Feb. 25, 2015): Guidelines encourage engaging extended family as part of active efforts to maintain or reunify Indian families.
• Alaska cases:
  • Taryn M. v. DFCS, OCS, 529 P.3d 523, 530 n.17 (Alaska 2023): Noted that active efforts are not required to place a child with a distant cousin who is not an Indian custodian.
  • In re Baron W., 498 P.3d 1045, 1051 (Alaska 2021): Defined “foster care placement” under ICWA as removal from a parent or Indian custodian; subsequent intra-foster movements do not implicate the same parental-rights dimension.
  • Jude M. v. OCS, 394 P.3d 543, 553 (Alaska 2017): Recognized foster care placement modifies parental rights, underpinning why § 1912 focuses on that juncture.
  • Tuluksak Native Community v. OCS, 530 P.3d 359 (Alaska 2023): Discussed ICWA placement preferences and the “good cause” standard to deviate; cited for plain-error standard (“obvious mistake” that is “obviously prejudicial”).
  • Native Village of Tununak v. OCS, 303 P.3d 431, 440 (Alaska 2013): Independent judgment applies to statutory interpretation.
  • Anton K. v. OCS, 554 P.3d 456, 470-71 (Alaska 2024): Recognized that engaging tribes and extended family can be part of active efforts aimed at reunifying a child with the parent/Indian custodian.
  • Marathon Oil Co. v. DNR, 254 P.3d 1078, 1082 (Alaska 2011), and Kodiak Island Borough v. Exxon, 991 P.2d 757, 761 (Alaska 1999): Canons of statutory construction — plain meaning, purpose, and harmonizing provisions.
• Out-of-state cases:
  • Guardian ad Litem v. State ex rel. C.D., 245 P.3d 724 (Utah 2010): Appeal by a grandfather (then an Indian custodian) on active efforts became moot when children were returned to their fathers; suggests active efforts track the Indian custodian status, not extended family per se.
  • In re L.N.W., 457 N.W.2d 17 (Iowa App. 1990), and In re K.B., 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751 (Cal. App. 2009): Courts assumed arguendo that active efforts could extend to extended family but avoided deciding, finding efforts sufficient in any event.
• Alaska statutes:
  • AS 47.14.100(e): Requires clear and convincing evidence of good cause when denying placement with a preferred option.
  • AS 47.10.086(a): State-law “reasonable efforts” toward parents/guardians to prevent out-of-home placement or enable safe return; not directed to extended family members.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s holding rests on a careful textual and structural reading of ICWA. Section 1912(d) requires active efforts when “any party” seeks to effect a foster care placement or termination of parental rights. Alaska case law (In re Baron W.; Jude M.) confirms that a “foster care placement” action under ICWA is the removal of a child from a parent or Indian custodian. Subsequent moves between out-of-home settings (e.g., moving a child from one foster home to another, or to an extended family member) are not the kind of “foster care placement” that alters parental rights and triggers § 1912(d).

The phrase “to prevent the breakup of the Indian family” in § 1912(d) is not defined in ICWA. Reading § 1912 as a whole, the Court concluded the statutory unit of protection is the parent/Indian custodian–child relationship:

• Other subsections of § 1912 confer rights specifically on parents and Indian custodians (e.g., notice, right to counsel, standards of proof).
• Section 1914 authorizes challenges to § 1912 violations only by the child, the parent or Indian custodian, and the tribe — not by extended family — indicating Congress’s focus on the core family unit.
• Section 1931(a) frames the overarching objective as preventing removal from a parent or Indian custodian, further reinforcing the focus of “active efforts.”

The BIA regulations and guidelines, while emphasizing partnership with extended family as part of culturally consonant engagement, do not impose a free-standing duty to provide “active efforts” directly to extended family members. Rather, they integrate extended family participation into services aimed at preserving or reunifying the parent/Indian custodian–child relationship.

Applying these principles, the Court held that OCS had no duty under § 1912(d) to provide active efforts to Lana to make her home suitable, because: (1) the proceeding was a post-removal placement review — not an initial removal or termination — and (2) Lana was neither a parent nor an Indian custodian. The Court expressly clarified the scope of § 1912(d) in Alaska, moving beyond the earlier footnote in Taryn M.

As to the superior court’s reference to state-law “reasonable efforts” (AS 47.10.086), the Supreme Court noted it was “peculiar” in an ICWA-driven case but did not affect the outcome: neither ICWA’s active efforts nor Alaska’s reasonable-efforts statute required OCS to physically assist an extended family member with home remediation to achieve suitability.

Placement Preferences and the Suitability Threshold

The superior court began from the premise — accepted by all — that as an extended family member, Lana was a priority placement under ICWA’s preferences (§ 1915). It then addressed suitability and, only if suitable, whether there was “good cause” to deviate from the statutory preferences (AS 47.14.100(e) requires clear and convincing evidence to deny a preferred placement). The court found Lana was not suitable — both due to persistent, serious safety hazards and broader judgment concerns — and it noted the Tribe’s continued approval of the current foster placement. Because Betsy did not appeal the suitability determination, the Supreme Court left that finding undisturbed.

The decision implicitly reinforces a two-step approach common in ICWA cases: (1) a proposed preferred placement must meet basic safety and suitability standards; (2) if suitable, the court must then assess whether the State has shown “good cause” to deviate from the preference. An unsuitable proposed placement does not compel a “good cause” deviation analysis.

Impact and Practical Implications

This decision provides clear guidance on the scope of ICWA’s “active efforts” in Alaska:

• Agencies: OCS is not required to provide “active efforts” to extended family members who seek placement of a child who has already been removed from a parent or Indian custodian and is in foster care. However, OCS must continue to honor ICWA’s placement preferences, consult with the child’s tribe, and assess relatives’ suitability with diligence and cultural sensitivity.
• Parents and Tribes: Challenges to the adequacy of “active efforts” should focus on the State’s efforts to prevent removal or to reunify the child with the parent/Indian custodian — not on services to prospective relative placements. Tribes remain central partners and may advocate for placements consistent with § 1915 and tribal standards.
• Extended Family Members: While they may be priority placements under § 1915, extended family members cannot demand ICWA “active efforts” as a legal entitlement to remediate their own home conditions. They should proactively demonstrate suitability and may work with the tribe and OCS to address concerns, but the statute does not require the State to furnish them services.
• Court practice: In post-removal placement reviews, courts should not require the State to prove § 1912(d) “active efforts” directed to extended family members. Courts must still rigorously apply § 1915 placement preferences, suitability assessments, and the “good cause” framework when appropriate.
• Documentation: Although not legally required to provide services to extended family, OCS would be well-served to document outreach to relatives and tribes and to facilitate reasonable, culturally sensitive engagement — both to honor ICWA’s purposes and to support placement decisions under § 1915.

The ruling aligns Alaska with the textual reading of ICWA and offers persuasive authority nationally, where few courts have squarely resolved whether § 1912(d) imposes a services duty to extended family members. The decision may reduce litigation over post-removal “active efforts” claims by relatives, while sharpening the focus on initial removal and reunification efforts directed at parents or Indian custodians.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• ICWA “active efforts” (25 U.S.C. § 1912(d)): A higher-than-reasonable-efforts standard requiring affirmative, culturally appropriate, remedial services to prevent removal of an Indian child from a parent/Indian custodian or to enable reunification. In Alaska, this obligation is not directed at extended family members seeking placement after removal.
• Foster care placement under ICWA: The action removing an Indian child from a parent or Indian custodian for temporary out-of-home care. Subsequent changes between out-of-home caregivers are not the “foster care placement” that triggers § 1912(d).
• Indian custodian: A person with legal custody under tribal or state law, or to whom the parent has transferred temporary physical care, custody, and control. An extended family member may be an Indian custodian in some cases; if so, § 1912(d) applies to preserve that custodial relationship.
• ICWA placement preferences (25 U.S.C. § 1915): A ranking that prioritizes placement with extended family, tribal-approved homes, and Indian homes. Preferences apply unless “good cause” to deviate is shown, and placements must be suitable and safe.
• Alaska “reasonable efforts” (AS 47.10.086): State-law duty to provide services to parents/guardians to prevent removal or facilitate safe return. Not a services mandate toward extended family members seeking placement.
• Plain error review: Appellate review for unpreserved issues requires an “obvious mistake” that is “obviously prejudicial.” Here, the question was statutory, and the Court reached the same outcome under any standard.

Observations on the Record

Several factual findings undergirded the outcome, though they were not directly appealed: (1) extensive, persistent safety hazards in Lana’s home despite multiple visits and some improvements; (2) concerns about decision-making and child safety rooted in the 2013 incident involving another child; (3) doubts about Lana’s ability to recognize and shield Albert from substance use by adults; and (4) the Tribe’s consistent opposition to placement with Lana and support for the current foster home. These facts reinforced both the unsuitability determination and the conclusion that, even if ICWA “active efforts” were owed (they were not), additional services directed to Lana were not legally required to be offered or proved.

Key Takeaways

• New rule clarified: In Alaska, ICWA § 1912(d) “active efforts” are owed to preserve or reunify the parent/Indian custodian–child relationship and are not required for extended family members seeking placement in a post-removal placement review.
• Trigger points matter: “Active efforts” are triggered by actions to remove from a parent/Indian custodian or to terminate parental rights — not by later placement changes within foster care.
• Extended family still central: While not owed “active efforts,” extended family remain top-priority placements under § 1915 and should be engaged in culturally appropriate ways consistent with BIA guidance.
• Suitability first: A proposed relative placement must be suitable. If unsuitable, courts need not reach “good cause” to deviate from ICWA’s placement preferences.
• Preserve issues: Parties seeking to litigate the scope of “active efforts” should raise and develop those arguments in the trial court to avoid plain-error constraints on appeal.

Conclusion

Betsy F. v. State is a significant clarification of ICWA practice in Alaska. By holding that § 1912(d)’s “active efforts” do not extend to extended family members in post-removal placement reviews, the Alaska Supreme Court realigns the focus on the statute’s core aim: preventing the breakup of the Indian family understood as the parent or Indian custodian and the child. The decision also preserves the centrality of ICWA’s placement preferences and the role of tribes and extended family in achieving culturally consonant placements, while recognizing that baseline suitability and child safety are essential predicates to any placement decision. Agencies, practitioners, and tribes now have firmer guidance on where the “active efforts” burden lies, when it is triggered, and how to structure placement-review litigation going forward.