Recent Compliance Is Not Enough: Alaska Supreme Court Affirms Termination Where Change Is Unproven Outside Structured Settings; “Reasonable Efforts” Do Not Require Early Neuropsychological Referral Absent Indicators

Recent Compliance Is Not Enough: Alaska Supreme Court Affirms Termination Where Change Is Unproven Outside Structured Settings; “Reasonable Efforts” Do Not Require Early Neuropsychological Referral Absent Indicators

Case: Terry W. (Father) v. State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children’s Services

Court: Supreme Court of the State of Alaska

Date: September 24, 2025

Procedural Posture: Appeal from an order terminating parental rights; affirmed.

Note on Precedential Status: This is a memorandum opinion and judgment, which under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) does not create binding precedent. It can, however, be instructive and persuasive, especially on fact-intensive applications of established rules.

Introduction

This appeal arises from the termination of a father’s parental rights to two young children with significant developmental and behavioral needs. The case centers on two legal questions commonly litigated in Alaska child in need of aid (CINA) proceedings:

  • Whether the parent “has not remedied within a reasonable time the conduct or conditions” that made the children CINA (AS 47.10.088(a)(1)-(2)), given the parent’s recent steps in treatment and parenting classes but a record of poor decision-making outside structured environments.
  • Whether the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) made “timely, reasonable efforts” to prevent family breakup and enable safe return, including whether OCS acted reasonably in the timing and selection of services such as a neuropsychological evaluation (AS 47.10.086(a); AS 47.10.088(a)(3)).

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the termination order, holding that the superior court did not clearly err in finding the father had not remedied neglect and substance abuse within a reasonable time, and that OCS’s efforts were reasonable in the totality of the case. Although non-precedential, the decision offers a detailed application of core CINA principles: recent compliance and service completion do not, standing alone, establish remediation; and OCS’s efforts need not be perfect nor include early neuropsychological assessment absent indicators suggesting it is necessary.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Standard of Review: Whether the parent remedied the conduct is reviewed for clear error. Reasonable efforts is a mixed question: factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions reviewed de novo.
  • Holding on Remediation: Affirmed. The superior court permissibly relied on the father’s recent relapses (as late as March 2024), history of poor judgment during unsupervised visitation (improper medication, leaving an infant alone, and facilitating prohibited contact with the mother while instructing the child to conceal it), the children’s young ages and special needs, and the recency of any improvement primarily within structured settings.
  • Holding on Reasonable Efforts: Affirmed. OCS’s case planning, visitation facilitation (including travel), referrals for treatment and parenting classes, and later referral for neuropsychological evaluation sufficed. OCS is not required to make perfect efforts nor to initiate a neuropsychological evaluation early where indicators for such testing are not yet apparent; efforts are judged across the life of the case.
  • Best Interests and CINA Status: Not challenged on appeal; the superior court’s findings on child need (neglect and substance abuse) and best interests stand.

Factual and Procedural Background

The record reflects a complex family history marked by substance exposure at birth, incarceration, and the children’s significant needs:

  • October 2021: Younger child, Audie, born outside a hospital; arrives hypothermic and drug-exposed (methamphetamine, amphetamine, opiates). Father (Terry) incarcerated on federal drug distribution and state assault charges. OCS petitions for temporary custody. Both children placed with foster parents.
  • Children’s needs:
    • Ira (age 4 at removal) diagnosed with adjustment disorder and ADHD; on medication to address impulsivity and aggression; receives services through an IEP.
    • Audie receives speech, physical, and occupational therapy; cranial reshaping helmet adjustments; suspected to need an IEP.
  • Summer 2022: Father released; consistent with supervised video visitation; some supervised in-person visits reported to go well. By spring 2023, OCS planning unsupervised overnights.
  • First unsupervised: Hotel visit. Concerns include improper medication (infant NyQuil given when infant Tylenol was recommended), failure to use packed clothing, and leaving the infant alone in the room while at the pool with Ira. Addressed as a “learning moment.”
  • Second unsupervised: At father’s home. OCS had barred contact with the mother (Alisa) absent approval. The child later reported that Alisa was present; father initially denied then admitted and instructed the child to keep it secret. OCS reverts to supervised visitation.
  • Summer 2023: Father relapses—four positive fentanyl tests—documented by federal probation; OCS learned later, having paused duplicative OCS testing on the assumption it would receive immediate notice of probation positives.
  • December 2023: Missed OCS-paid flight for visit; claimed car trouble; actually arrested for DUI in Fairbanks with Alisa present. Sentenced to eight months in a halfway house with mandatory treatment.
  • 2024 casework: OCS develops new case plan (abstinence, parenting skills, good judgment). Father commences 18-week outpatient treatment (March 2024), completes two parenting classes and a relationship class; reports last use March 2024; clean tests in treatment. Reports suspected Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and past carbon monoxide poisoning, prompting OCS to refer for neuropsychological evaluation (scheduled June 2024); canceled due to halfway house travel restriction.
  • Trial (late July 2024): OCS workers, foster mothers, and a nurse practitioner testify to children’s progress and needs; father and his counselors testify to his engagement and improvements. Superior court terminates parental rights the day after trial for neglect and substance abuse; finds failure to remedy within a reasonable time and reasonable efforts by OCS; best interests satisfied.

Legal Framework

  • Termination Elements (AS 47.10.088(a)):
    • Child is in need of aid (CINA).
    • Parent has not remedied within a reasonable time the conduct/conditions that placed the child at risk, such that return would place the child at risk of harm.
    • OCS made timely, reasonable efforts to reunify the family (AS 47.10.086(a)).
  • Best Interests: By a preponderance of evidence (see Bob S. v. State, OCS, 400 P.3d 99 (Alaska 2017)).
  • Remediation Factors (AS 47.10.088(b)): Child’s age/needs and likelihood of timely return; parent’s efforts; harm to the child; likelihood of recurrence; history of conduct.
  • Standards of Review:
    • Remediation finding: clear error (Joy B. v. State, OCS, 382 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2016)).
    • Reasonable efforts: mixed question—facts for clear error; law de novo (Joy B.; Sherry R. v. State, OCS, 332 P.3d 1268 (Alaska 2014)).

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Joy B. v. State, OCS (2016), Shirley M. v. State, OCS (2015), Chloe W. v. State, OCS (2014), Sherry R. v. State, OCS (2014):
    • These cases anchor the standards of review and the deference owed to trial courts on fact-intensive questions like remediation and efforts.
  • Bob S. v. State, OCS (2017):
    • Clarifies the burden and standard for best interests (preponderance) and confirms the structure of termination analysis.
  • Barbara P. v. State, OCS (2010), Rick P. v. State, OCS (2005), V.S.B. v. State, DFYS (2002):
    • Stand for the proposition that service completion or compliance does not guarantee remediation; courts may consider whether the parent has internalized skills and can apply them in real-world contexts outside controlled settings. This directly informs the court’s skepticism about recent progress confined to a halfway house.
  • Trevor M. v. State, OCS (2016), Christina J. v. State, OCS (2011):
    • Reinforce that “reasonable time” is case-specific but is shorter for young children because delayed bonding causes lasting harm—especially relevant given Audie’s infancy and both children’s special needs.
  • Casey K. v. State, OCS (2013), Audrey H. v. State, OCS (2008), Sean B. v. State, OCS (2011):
    • Define “reasonable efforts” as reasonable, not perfect; OCS has discretion in selecting and timing services; efforts assessed across the case’s lifespan. These decisions undergird the conclusion that the timing of the neuropsychological referral did not defeat the overall reasonableness of OCS’s efforts.
  • Williams v. Baker (2019) and Alaska Appellate Rule 212(c)(3):
    • Appellate briefing rules bar raising new contentions in reply; used to decline consideration of a late-raised clarity-of-findings argument.

Legal Reasoning

A. Failure to Remedy Within a Reasonable Time

The superior court found neglect and substance abuse as CINA bases (AS 47.10.011(9), (10)). In evaluating remediation (AS 47.10.088(b)), the court weighed:

  • Children’s Age and Needs: Audie had been in care essentially her entire life; both children had significant special needs requiring stability, consistent limit-setting, and therapeutic support. “Reasonable time” is shortened for young children to prevent bonding disruptions (Christina J.).
  • Parent’s Efforts vs. Efficacy: Father completed an 18-week treatment program, parenting classes, and had recent clean tests while in a halfway house. But he relapsed as late as March 2024; his progress was very recent and largely within a structured environment. Alaska cases (Barbara P., Rick P., V.S.B.) permit trial courts to discount recent compliance where the parent has not shown durable change or application of skills outside controlled settings.
  • History and Likelihood of Recurrence: The record of relapse, DUI with the mother present, and poor decisions during the first unsupervised visits—administering inappropriate medication, leaving an infant alone, violating no-contact directives and enlisting the child in concealment—supported a finding of ongoing risk and insufficient remediation.
  • Timeline and Harm: The case had been open for nearly three years; the children had bonded with foster parents and were doing significantly better. The superior court’s bottom line—“he made some strides, it’s just too late”—reflects the statutory command to prioritize children’s timelines over a parent’s open-ended treatment trajectory (AS 47.10.990(30)).

Under the clear error standard, the Supreme Court deferred to the trial court’s credibility assessments and weighing of evidence. It emphasized that the father’s parenting skills had not been tested in unstructured contexts and his sobriety was too recent to show sustained change and safety for return.

B. OCS’s Reasonable Efforts

The court assessed OCS’s efforts holistically across the case’s lifespan (Barbara P.), recognizing OCS’s discretion in service selection and sequencing and the “reasonable, not perfect” benchmark (Casey K.; Audrey H.). OCS:

  • Developed case plans and family contact plans; arranged frequent visitation (including videoconferencing and in-person visits), travel, and supported therapeutic and medical services for the children.
  • Referred the father to substance abuse treatment, parenting classes, and a relationship class; adjusted visitation levels in response to safety concerns.
  • Upon learning of possible cognitive contributors (self-reported suspected Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and prior carbon monoxide poisoning) and a pattern of self-defeating choices, referred the father for neuropsychological evaluation. The appointment was set close to trial but canceled due to the halfway house’s travel restriction.

While OCS paused duplicative drug testing, relying on federal probation for monitoring, and was not immediately informed of positives, the court held this shortcoming did not render the overall effort unreasonable. Crucially, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that, before late 2023, the record did not make a neuropsychological evaluation obviously indicated, and OCS’s focus on substance abuse and parenting skill-building was a reasonable prioritization. Because “reasonable efforts” are measured in context and over time, the later referral was sufficient in light of the totality.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although non-precedential, this opinion highlights several recurrent themes in Alaska CINA jurisprudence that practitioners should heed:

  • Recency and Structure Matter: Recent sobriety or class completion, without proof of sustained application outside structured settings, is often insufficient to establish remediation. Courts look for durable behavioral change shown in real-world parenting contexts.
  • Children’s Timelines Control “Reasonable Time”: For very young children and children with special needs, courts will not extend remediation timelines to accommodate long treatment curves, especially where early unsupervised contacts reveal significant safety misjudgments.
  • “Reasonable Efforts” Are Holistic: OCS’s efforts are judged across the life of the case; they need not be perfect. Delays or missteps (e.g., information flow about drug tests, late neuropsych referral) rarely defeat the finding where the agency otherwise provided robust services aimed at reunification.
  • Neuropsychological Services Are Not Automatic: The absence of early neuropsychological referral will not, by itself, negate reasonableness unless the record shows early, conspicuous indicators that such testing was necessary and OCS unreasonably ignored them.
  • Credibility and Deference: Under clear-error review, the Supreme Court will defer to the trial court’s assessments of the parent’s progress and risk. Building a strong, contemporaneous record at trial is critical.

Practice pointers:

  • For parents and counsel: Prioritize early, consistent engagement; demonstrate safe, appropriate parenting in unsupervised contexts as soon as possible; document behavioral changes beyond treatment attendance; avoid contact violations and any conduct that undermines trust (e.g., instructing a child to lie).
  • For OCS and providers: Maintain clear documentation of case planning, service referrals, and rationale for sequencing. Ensure communication protocols with probation and other agencies to promptly receive critical information (e.g., drug test results). When cognitive concerns arise, document the indicators and the timing of any neuropsychological referrals.
  • For the courts: Make explicit findings keyed to AS 47.10.088(b). Address the child’s developmental needs and bonding; note whether the parent’s gains have been tested outside structured settings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Child in Need of Aid (CINA): A legal status for children who are at risk due to parental conduct such as neglect or substance abuse. It allows the state to intervene and provide services or place the child in foster care.
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence: A high civil burden requiring that the evidence shows the claim is highly probable—not as high as “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but more than “more likely than not.”
  • Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard for best interests—more likely than not.
  • Clear Error Review: The appellate court will not overturn a trial court’s factual finding unless it is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made. This is a deferential standard.
  • Reasonable Efforts: OCS must provide timely, reasonable (not perfect) services designed to remedy the problems and reunify the family. Efforts are evaluated over the entire case.
  • Reasonable Time to Remedy: The time aligned with the child’s best interests, considering age, developmental needs, and ability to form lasting attachments. It is often shorter for infants and very young children.
  • Structured Environment: Settings like jail, inpatient programs, or halfway houses where external controls support sobriety and behavior. Courts look for sustained improvement when those controls are removed.

Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court’s memorandum decision affirms a familiar but crucial set of principles in CINA cases. The court upheld findings that a parent’s late-stage compliance with services and recent sobriety, largely within a structured environment, did not prove remediation within a reasonable time for two young, high-need children. The record supported concerns about parenting judgment, the risk of relapse, and the lack of demonstrated change in unsupervised conditions. On “reasonable efforts,” the court reiterated that OCS’s obligations are to be reasonable in context, not flawless, and that service selection—including the timing of neuropsychological evaluation—is entrusted to the agency’s reasonable discretion absent clear early indicators.

For practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of early, externalized behavioral change by parents; careful, documented service provision by OCS; and trial courts’ duty to anchor findings in the statutory factors and the children’s timelines. While non-precedential, this opinion offers a comprehensive, fact-driven roadmap for how Alaska courts are likely to assess remediation and reasonable efforts in similar cases going forward.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court Of The State Of Alaska

Comments