Holistic “Active Efforts” Under ICWA and the Effect of Parental Disappearance: Roger S. v. State of Alaska (Memorandum Opinion, Oct. 8, 2025)

Note on precedential status: This is a memorandum opinion of the Alaska Supreme Court. Under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d), memorandum decisions do not create binding precedent and may be cited only as permitted by that rule. The discussion below treats the decision as persuasive authority and situates it within existing Alaska and federal ICWA jurisprudence.

Introduction

This case concerns the Indian Child Welfare Act’s “active efforts” requirement in the context of a parent who largely disengaged from child protection services after significant personal losses. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) took emergency custody of two Indian children, Roger Jr. and Wiley, following reports of domestic violence and substance abuse involving their father, Roger S., and their mother, Tove G. After removal in August 2022, Roger initially engaged with an OCS case plan but later stopped participating, experienced the death of the children’s mother in April 2023, and then — after alleged methamphetamine use and new domestic violence incidents — ceased contact with OCS for many months. In mid-2024, he briefly reappeared, reporting extreme depression following the killing of his pregnant girlfriend, but he again failed to follow up or attend scheduled contacts.

On appeal from the termination of his parental rights, Roger’s sole argument was narrow yet important: OCS failed to make “active efforts” under ICWA because it did not specifically provide him grief counseling or mental health services following the two deaths. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, when viewed in their entirety and in light of the father’s prolonged noncooperation and disappearance, OCS’s remedial efforts satisfied ICWA even absent a specific grief-counseling referral.

Summary of the Opinion

The superior court terminated Roger’s parental rights after finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that his children were in need of aid due to abandonment, mental injury, and substance abuse; that he failed to remedy the conduct placing the children at risk; and that OCS made “active efforts” to prevent the breakup of the Indian family that were unsuccessful. The tribe and the guardian ad litem supported termination. Roger did not attend the termination trial.

On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court treated the active efforts inquiry as a mixed question of law and fact: factual findings are reviewed for clear error, while whether those facts amount to active efforts under ICWA is reviewed de novo. The Court emphasized that active efforts must be assessed holistically and tailored to the circumstances, but need not be perfect. Here, OCS repeatedly engaged Roger with case planning and referrals (parenting classes, substance use assessments, AA, healthy relationship classes, domestic violence assessment), facilitated visitation, and made persistent multi-modal attempts to locate him during periods of noncontact (phone, text, email, certified mail, checks of VINElink and CourtView, contact with relatives and foster parents, searches in shelters, and even attending a hearing in another case). When Roger disclosed his girlfriend’s death, the caseworker scheduled an immediate visit and suggested he see a therapist, but he failed to appear or reengage.

Given Roger’s chronic noncooperation and disappearance, the Court held that the absence of a specific grief-counseling referral did not negate OCS’s otherwise active efforts. The termination order was affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shape the Ruling

25 U.S.C. § 1912(d); 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.2, 23.120 (2025 editions cited): ICWA requires “active efforts” to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. Federal regulations define active efforts as affirmative, active, thorough, and timely, and require that the agency assist the parent through case plan steps, helping the parent access or develop necessary resources. The Court measured OCS’s conduct against this federal yardstick.
O’Brien v. Delaplain, 556 P.3d 1170 (Alaska 2024): Reaffirmed that there is no “pat formula” for active efforts; the inquiry is case-by-case, holistic, and must be tailored to the family’s circumstances. The Court invokes O’Brien’s framework to evaluate OCS’s actions as a whole rather than focusing on a single omitted service.
Mona J. v. State, OCS, 511 P.3d 553 (Alaska 2022): Clarifies standards of review and emphasizes that while a parent’s noncooperation does not excuse the agency from making active efforts, it can excuse minor failures and influence what actions qualify. The Court analogizes to Mona J. in concluding that the absence of a specific mental health referral did not defeat the active-efforts showing where the parent disengaged.
Ben M. v. State, OCS, 204 P.3d 1013 (Alaska 2009): A parent’s lack of cooperation may excuse minor lapses in services. Cited to show that nonparticipation can limit what an agency reasonably can do while still meeting ICWA’s active-efforts requirement.
Denny M. v. State, OCS, 365 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2016): Instructs courts to view efforts “in their entirety.” The Court here applies that holistic lens to conclude that the breadth and persistence of OCS’s outreach and referrals outweighed the single asserted deficiency.
Sylvia L. v. State, OCS, 343 P.3d 425 (Alaska 2015): Upheld an active-efforts finding where a parent’s disappearance “stymied” services. The case closely parallels Roger’s prolonged noncontact after October 2023 and supports the conclusion that OCS’s outreach was sufficient despite the parent’s absence.
Pravat P. v. State, OCS, 249 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2011): Recognizes “evident futility” limits; the agency is not required to pursue plainly fruitless measures. The Court relies on this to explain why OCS’s inability to deliver grief counseling in the absence of contact did not undermine the active-efforts showing.
Ronald H. v. State, OCS, 490 P.3d 357 (Alaska 2021): Cited for standards of review: factual findings are reviewed for clear error; whether those facts satisfy ICWA is a legal question reviewed de novo.

Legal Reasoning

ICWA’s active-efforts mandate requires agencies to do more than passively provide referrals; they must affirmatively help parents engage with services, tailoring interventions to the family’s specific risks and needs. At the same time, the doctrine is pragmatic: courts assess the totality of the agency’s efforts, and perfection is not required. Noncooperation, while not an excuse to do nothing, can lawfully limit what qualifies as active effort and excuse minor shortfalls.

The Alaska Supreme Court applied those principles in several steps:

Holistic view. The Court evaluated the entire course of OCS’s involvement from August 2022 through termination. OCS repeatedly revised case plans, provided concrete referrals (substance use, mental health integrated assessment, parenting, healthy relationships, domestic violence assessment), arranged visitation, and maintained consistent outreach across multiple platforms and even in person when possible. This breadth of actions satisfied the “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” regulatory standard.
Tailoring vs. perfection. Roger’s argument emphasized the absence of grief-specific counseling after the deaths of Tove (April 2023) and, later, his pregnant girlfriend (mid-2024). The Court acknowledged that tailoring requires attention to mental health needs, but it found two pivotal facts: (1) after Tove’s death, Roger remained engaged for a time and did not indicate a need for specific grief services; and (2) when he later disclosed extreme depression, OCS immediately attempted to schedule a visit and suggested he see a therapist, but he again disengaged. Under O’Brien and 25 C.F.R. § 23.2, active efforts need not be flawless; the omission of a formal grief-counseling referral did not eclipse OCS’s otherwise robust efforts.
Noncooperation and futility. The Court underscored that from October 2023 forward, Roger effectively disappeared. Two successive caseworkers documented frequent, multichannel attempts to locate him, including outreach to relatives, foster parents, and through institutional databases. In this posture, the “evident futility” principle applied: OCS cannot deliver or coordinate grief counseling without contact. Noncooperation thus excused the specific gap asserted.
Standard of review and factual deference. The superior court’s findings — that OCS made broad active efforts and that Roger’s disappearance stymied service delivery — were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. On de novo review of whether those facts met ICWA’s standard, the Supreme Court agreed they did.

Bottom line: ICWA’s active-efforts inquiry is holistic and contextual. Where the parent’s prolonged noncooperation prevents tailored delivery of a particular service (here, grief counseling), substantial and persistent efforts in other domains may still satisfy the statute.

Impact

Because this is a memorandum opinion, it does not create binding precedent. Nonetheless, it offers persuasive guidance on several recurring ICWA issues:

Holistic assessment is decisive. Agencies and trial courts should document and evaluate all remedial steps together — case planning, referrals, assistance with access, transportation and scheduling support, visitation facilitation, and persistent outreach when contact is lost. A single omitted service will not typically be dispositive if the overall pattern is robust.
Noncooperation shapes what “active efforts” require. This decision reinforces that while the agency must keep trying, practical limits apply. Prolonged disappearance, refusal to engage, or failure to attend scheduled services can excuse minor deficiencies and constrain the scope of feasible tailoring.
Mental health and grief services remain important. The opinion does not diminish the importance of addressing bereavement and mental health. Rather, it clarifies that the failure to provide a grief-specific referral will not, by itself, defeat active efforts where contact is lost and other efforts are ongoing. As a best practice, when a parent discloses acute grief, agencies should attempt immediate, concrete steps — e.g., name specific providers, schedule appointments with consent, arrange transportation, and follow up in writing — and document these steps. If contact then lapses, the record will reflect both tailoring and futility.
Practice pointers for parents and counsel. If grief or other mental health needs are present, prompt, explicit requests for targeted services should be made and documented. Maintaining contact and attending scheduled assessments is critical; otherwise, arguments about insufficient tailoring are difficult to sustain on appeal.
Trial practice and record-building. The case exemplifies thorough record-building on outreach efforts (calls, texts, emails, certified mail, database checks, contacts with relatives and shelters, and court appearances). Such documentation is often outcome-determinative in ICWA active-efforts disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA): A federal law governing child welfare cases involving “Indian children.” It imposes heightened protections, including the requirement that the State make “active efforts” to prevent the breakup of the Indian family before terminating parental rights.
Active efforts vs. reasonable efforts: “Active efforts” (ICWA) require more hands-on assistance than “reasonable efforts” (often the state standard). Active efforts typically involve helping the parent through each step of the plan — making referrals, helping schedule, addressing barriers like transportation, and persistent follow-up.
Clear and convincing evidence: A high evidentiary standard requiring the factfinder to be firmly convinced of the truth of the allegations. In ICWA terminations, different elements carry different burdens; the active-efforts requirement is proved by clear and convincing evidence. Other ICWA elements (such as likely serious damage if the child is returned) generally require proof beyond a reasonable doubt with qualified expert testimony, but those were not at issue in this appeal.
CINA grounds (AS 47.10.011): Alaska’s “Child in Need of Aid” statute lists conditions that can justify state intervention. Relevant grounds here included abandonment (subsection (1)), mental injury (subsection (8)), and parental substance abuse (subsection (10)).
Integrated assessment: A combined evaluation that typically screens for substance use and mental health needs to guide case planning and referrals.
UA and hair follicle tests: Urinalysis (UA) and hair tests are common tools for monitoring substance use. Hair tests can reflect longer-term use patterns; UAs capture recent use.
VINElink and CourtView: Online tools OCS used to locate the parent. VINElink monitors custody status in correctional systems; CourtView is the Alaska trial courts’ case management system.
Guardian ad litem (GAL) and tribal involvement: The GAL represents the child’s best interests; the tribe has a statutory role in ICWA cases. Here, both supported termination, which, while not dispositive, supports the court’s best-interest and ICWA analysis.

Case Background and Timeline (For Clarity)

August 2022: OCS removes the children after reports of domestic violence and alcohol abuse; temporary custody granted; children placed in foster care.
November 2022–January 2023: Initial and revised case plans include assessments, parenting and relationship classes, AA, UAs, and visitation; Roger initially engages.
March–April 2023: Roger stops classes; the children’s mother, Tove, dies; by May, a new caseworker notes Roger is engaged and motivated.
June 2023: Roger does not attend adjudication; children found CINA on several grounds.
July 2023: Some progress (work, housing, contact, AA), but inconsistent UAs and classes; plan revised; brief renewed engagement, then drop-off.
August–October 2023: Three domestic violence incidents; one arrest; alleged meth use during visit; OCS requests hair test and UA; one child tests positive for methamphetamine.
Late 2023–mid-2024: OCS loses contact; persistent outreach is unsuccessful.
June 2024: OCS petitions to terminate rights.
July 2024: Brief phone contact; Roger reports extreme depression after girlfriend’s killing; caseworker schedules a visit and suggests counseling; Roger does not appear or reengage.
August 2024: New caseworker continues outreach without success.
December 2024: Termination trial; Roger does not attend; tribe and GAL support termination.
October 8, 2025: Alaska Supreme Court affirms termination; active efforts satisfied.

Conclusion

This memorandum opinion reinforces several settled ICWA principles in Alaska: active efforts must be assessed as a whole, tailored to the family but not perfect; a parent’s noncooperation and disappearance can excuse minor deficiencies and bound what active efforts require; and agencies that document persistent, multi-faceted outreach and service facilitation are likely to meet ICWA’s standard even when an asserted gap exists in a particular service area like grief counseling.

For practitioners, the decision underscores two practical imperatives. First, agencies should respond to known or suspected bereavement with concrete, immediate mental health support steps and document those efforts. Second, when contact is lost, agencies must keep trying — using varied methods and showing diligence — but ICWA does not demand the impossible. For parents and counsel, the case is a cautionary example: sustained engagement, especially in the wake of trauma, is vital both for reunification and to preserve arguments about the adequacy of services.

Although nonprecedential, Roger S. is a useful, fact-driven illustration of how Alaska courts apply ICWA’s active-efforts requirement when a parent’s disengagement and “evident futility” limit the agency’s ability to deliver perfectly tailored services.