Failure-to-Remedy Findings Are Sufficient When the Basis Is Discernible from the Order as a Whole

Case: Alana M. (Mother) v. State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services (OCS)

Court: Alaska Supreme Court | Date: August 27, 2025 | No.: S-19209

Note: This is a memorandum opinion entered under Alaska Appellate Rule 214 and designated as nonprecedential. It may nevertheless be persuasive.

Introduction

This child-protection appeal asks how detailed a trial court’s “failure-to-remedy” finding must be to permit meaningful appellate review in a termination-of-parental-rights (TPR) case. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Alana M.’s parental rights to four children after finding the trial court’s reasoning—though brief in its “failure-to-remedy” section—was sufficiently clear when read together with the order’s other findings and record references. The Court also concluded that any challenge to the factual correctness of the failure-to-remedy finding was waived for inadequate briefing and, in any event, was well supported by the record.

The case involves extreme and prolonged abuse of a child, “Linus,” in the home of Alana and her partner, Lucien. The younger children (Cal, Hank, Gregor, and Ellie) were adjudicated children in need of aid (CINA) based on risk of physical harm, mental injury, and neglect stemming from their exposure to Linus’s abuse and the home conditions. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) sought to terminate parental rights after the parents failed to engage in and complete services—particularly domestic violence programming—designed to address the underlying conduct.

On appeal, Alana argued that the superior court’s failure-to-remedy determination lacked the specificity needed for appellate review. The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that courts do not require perfectly compartmentalized findings so long as the basis for the decision is apparent from the order and record taken as a whole.

Summary of the Judgment

CINA Adjudication and Grounds: The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that the four younger children were CINA due to substantial risk of physical harm (AS 47.10.011(6)), substantial risk of mental injury (AS 47.10.011(8)), and neglect (AS 47.10.011(9)), based on years of escalating abuse of Linus within the home and the parents’ failure to protect.
Reasonable Efforts: The court found that OCS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, including case planning around parenting, domestic violence (DV) assessment and services, psychological evaluation, and support for substance abuse treatment.
Failure to Remedy: Although brief, the superior court’s order—considered as a whole—adequately explained that Alana failed to remedy the conduct that made the children CINA because she did not complete DV programming or demonstrate changed behaviors that would protect the children going forward.
Best Interests: By a preponderance of the evidence, termination served the children’s best interests given the duration and severity of abuse, parents’ lack of contact for more than two years, unresolved criminal matters, and the unlikelihood of safe reunification in a reasonable time.
Appellate Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed. It held the findings were sufficient for appellate review, treated any factual challenge to the failure-to-remedy finding as waived for inadequate briefing, and found no clear error in the trial court’s conclusion that Alana had not remedied her conduct.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Informed the Decision

Annette H. v. State, OCS, 450 P.3d 259 (Alaska 2019): Reaffirmed that trial courts must make findings sufficient to support meaningful appellate review. The Court used this framework to assess whether the superior court’s failure-to-remedy finding—though terse—was intelligible when read with the rest of the order.
In re Adoption of Hannah L., 390 P.3d 1153 (Alaska 2017) (n.16), and Price v. Eastham, 128 P.3d 725 (Alaska 2006): These authorities underscore the duty under Civil Rule 52 to “find the facts specially,” clarifying what suffices to give reviewing courts a clear understanding of the ruling’s foundation.
Miller v. Miller, 105 P.3d 1136 (Alaska 2005): Establishes that whether findings are sufficiently clear is a legal question reviewed de novo, a standard the Court applied here to evaluate the adequacy of the trial court’s explanation.
Crittell v. Bingo, 36 P.3d 634 (Alaska 2001), and Urban Dev. Co. v. Dekreon, 526 P.2d 325 (Alaska 1974): These cases recognize that findings need not be perfectly labeled or siloed if the order and record make plain that the court addressed and resolved the necessary factual disputes. The Supreme Court relied on this principle to uphold the failure-to-remedy finding by “reading across” the order’s sections and incorporated exhibits.
Mapco Express, Inc. v. Faulk, 24 P.3d 531 (Alaska 2001): Supports the idea that a court’s reasoning can be “adequately explained” when understood in conjunction with other filings and the evidentiary record. The Court analogized this to the superior court’s incorporation of an exhibit summarizing OCS’s efforts.
Frank E. v. State, 77 P.3d 715 (Alaska 2003): Applied for the waiver principle: arguments are forfeited if inadequately briefed. The Court used this to treat Alana’s factual challenge to failure-to-remedy as waived.
Barbara P. v. State, OCS, 234 P.3d 1245 (Alaska 2010): Clarifies that a failure-to-remedy determination is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. The Court used this to note that, even if reached, the record supported the trial court.

Taken together, these authorities allowed the Court to: (1) examine the sufficiency of the trial court’s written findings de novo, (2) read the order holistically, (3) treat undeveloped factual arguments as waived, and (4) note that, under clear-error review, the record comfortably supported the failure-to-remedy determination.

Legal Reasoning

Termination of parental rights under Alaska law requires the State to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, multiple elements, including that the child is in need of aid (CINA) and that the parent has failed to remedy the conduct placing the child at substantial risk of harm. See AS 47.10.088(a); CINA Rule 18(c). Finally, termination must be shown to be in the child’s best interests by a preponderance of the evidence.

1) CINA Grounds: Risk of Physical Harm, Mental Injury, and Neglect

The superior court found years of escalating, “horrific” abuse of Linus: being bound to a metal rolling cart for extended periods, blindfolded, beaten, restrained with duct tape, and left in conditions so unsanitary that dried urine “essentially glued” the cart to the floor. The court did not need to attribute direct physical acts to Alana; it was enough that neither parent protected Linus. The younger children were at risk of physical harm (AS 47.10.011(6)), mental injury from prolonged exposure (AS 47.10.011(8)), and neglect due to the conditions and failure to meet basic needs (AS 47.10.011(9)).

2) Reasonable Efforts by OCS

OCS created and updated a case plan requiring Alana to pursue a domestic violence assessment and follow recommendations, obtain a psychological evaluation, complete parenting programs, and—after Alana and her criminal defense attorney independently selected Restore, Inc., which recommended it—engage in substance abuse treatment. The agency struggled to engage with Restore (limited information flow; Restore reportedly discouraged outside DV programming), and Alana was later discharged for rule violations. OCS also lost contact with Alana for a period. The superior court found OCS’s efforts reasonable by clear and convincing evidence and referenced an exhibit detailing those efforts.

3) Failure to Remedy

Although the superior court’s dedicated paragraph on “reasonable efforts/failure to remedy” was spare, the Supreme Court held it was adequate when read with: (a) the order’s earlier findings detailing the abuse and Alana’s failure to protect; (b) the finding that abuse severity escalated over years; (c) the finding that Alana did not complete DV programming and selected “improper programming”; and (d) the court’s incorporation of OCS’s efforts (via exhibit) tailored to address DV/parenting issues at the core of the harm.

Because Alana’s closing argument did not contend she had actually remedied her conduct—she argued instead that OCS’s efforts were inadequate and requested more time—the superior court’s concise explanation still gave the appellate court a clear basis for review: Alana had not completed core services addressing the abuse/failure-to-protect and remained a risk.

4) Best Interests

Applying the preponderance standard, the court found termination in the children’s best interests. Critical facts included: no parental contact for over two years; ongoing criminal proceedings; the need for completion of DV programming; and the increasing severity of abuse over time. The court concluded that reunification in a “reasonable time” was unlikely.

5) Waiver and Factual Sufficiency

Beyond the sufficiency-of-findings challenge, Alana did not develop an argument that the failure-to-remedy finding was wrong on the facts. The Supreme Court treated that challenge as waived for inadequate briefing. Even so, it noted the record would sustain the finding: Alana did not complete DV services or other core case-plan elements aimed at addressing the underlying abuse/failure-to-protect, and thus had not demonstrated gains sufficient to safely return the children.

Impact and Practical Significance

Although designated nonprecedential, this decision offers meaningful guidance in several respects:

Holistic Reading of Findings: Trial judges need not write lengthy, compartmentalized analyses for each statutory element if the order’s totality makes the basis for the decision clear. Incorporation by reference (e.g., to an exhibit cataloguing agency efforts) can contribute to sufficiency.
Failure-to-Remedy Focused on the Underlying Risk: Parents must engage with and complete the particular services that address the specific harms (here, domestic violence and failure-to-protect). Self-selecting programs that do not confront the core risks—and not completing required DV programming—can support a failure-to-remedy finding.
OCS Documentation Matters: A clear, written record of the case plan, updates, and engagement efforts—especially when providers are uncooperative—strengthens the State’s “reasonable efforts” showing and helps insulate findings on appeal.
Pending Criminal Matters Do Not Pause the Child-Protection Clock: The Court recognized the tension between criminal defense strategy and CINA case expectations but made clear that the parent still must demonstrate behavioral change sufficient to protect children within the child-protection timelines.
Appellate Practice Alert—Briefing Waiver: Parties challenging findings should do more than argue insufficiency-of-findings; they should also develop arguments on factual error. Failure to do so risks waiver.
Failure to Protect as a Basis for CINA: The decision underscores that a parent’s failure to intervene to protect a child from severe, ongoing abuse can itself render other children in the household CINA due to risk of physical harm, mental injury, and neglect—even without deciding which parent inflicted the abuse.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Child in Need of Aid (CINA): A legal status for children who face risks such as physical harm, mental injury, or neglect. It allows the State to intervene for the child’s protection.
Reasonable Efforts: Steps OCS must take to help the family reunify safely—such as assessments, service referrals, and support—tailored to the harms that made the child CINA. Proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Failure to Remedy: The parent has not sufficiently addressed (through services and behavioral change) the problems that put the child at risk, so the risk remains. Also proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Best Interests of the Child: The ultimate question in TPR: will termination promote the child’s welfare and safety? Proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Standards of Proof:
- Clear and convincing evidence—A high level of certainty; more than “more likely than not,” less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
- Preponderance of the evidence—More likely true than not (greater than 50%).
Standards of Review on Appeal:
- De novo: The appellate court gives no deference to the trial court’s legal determination (e.g., whether findings are sufficiently clear).
- Clear error: The appellate court defers to the trial court’s factual findings unless left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
- Waiver for inadequate briefing: If an argument is not adequately developed in the appellate brief, the court may treat it as forfeited.
Incorporation by Reference: A trial court can refer to other parts of its order or to exhibits in the record to explain its findings, rather than restating all details in one section.
Failure to Protect: A legal concept recognizing that a parent can endanger children by not intervening to stop known abuse by another caregiver, even without personally inflicting the harm.

Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court’s memorandum opinion in Alana M. reinforces a pragmatic, record-based approach to reviewing TPR findings. While the superior court’s “failure-to-remedy” section was terse, the decision’s foundation was clear from the order’s broader findings and its references to OCS’s documented efforts and the parent’s service history. On that holistic reading, the Court found the explanation sufficient for meaningful review, deemed any factual challenge waived for inadequate briefing, and—in any event—found no clear error.

Key takeaways:

Trial courts should focus on clarity and coherence across the entire order; explicit cross-references and incorporated exhibits can suffice.
Parents must complete services that directly address the risks (here, domestic violence/failure-to-protect) to show they have remedied their conduct.
OCS’s meticulous documentation of reasonable efforts is vital, especially when engagement with providers is imperfect or parent-selected programs are misaligned.
Appellate practitioners should pair a sufficiency-of-findings argument with a well-developed factual challenge to avoid waiver.

Although nonprecedential, the decision provides persuasive guidance on how Alaska courts may evaluate the sufficiency of termination findings and the evidentiary demands for demonstrating remedy of parental conduct that endangers children.

Failure-to-Remedy Findings Are Sufficient When the Basis Is Discernible from the Order as a Whole: Alaska Supreme Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights