Chloe W. v. State, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Chloe W.'s parental rights to her three-year-old son, an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The court held that the superior court properly considered a stipulation concerning Chloe's treatment, that counsel's handling of the stipulation did not constitute ineffective assistance, and that the evidence supported findings of failure to remedy, active efforts by OCS, serious potential harm under ICWA, and the child's best interests.

Holdings

1. The superior court properly considered the parties' stipulation concerning Dr. Topol's discharge of Chloe, and Chloe failed to establish ineffective assistance because the record independently supported the relapse finding and she did not show that different counsel performance would have changed the outcome.
2. The superior court did not clearly err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Chloe failed to remedy the conduct or conditions that placed Timothy at substantial risk of harm.
3. The superior court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that OCS made active but unsuccessful efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
4. The superior court did not err in finding beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence including qualified expert testimony, that continued custody of Timothy by Chloe was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage.
5. The superior court did not err in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that termination of Chloe's parental rights was in Timothy's best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court improperly relied on a post-trial stipulation concerning Chloe's psychiatrist's discharge of her and whether trial counsel's decision to enter the stipulation constituted ineffective assistance.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Chloe failed to remedy the conduct or conditions placing Timothy at substantial risk of harm.
3. Whether OCS made active but unsuccessful efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent breakup of the Indian family.
4. Whether the evidence satisfied ICWA's requirement that continued custody by Chloe was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to Timothy.
5. Whether termination of Chloe's parental rights was in Timothy's best interests.

Disposition

affirmed