Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

A ten-year-old child, considered an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act, was taken into emergency state custody due to neglect and self-harm concerns. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed the child in foster care and later admitted him to a residential psychiatric facility for mental health treatment. The Native Village of Hooper Bay, the child’s tribe, intervened in the child in need of aid (CINA) proceeding and sought access to the child’s unredacted psychotherapy records, arguing they were necessary to secure appropriate services for the child. The child’s attorney objected to the release of these records, citing confidentiality concerns, while the court-appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege.The Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, Hooper Bay, ruled that the GAL held the authority to waive the child’s psychotherapist-patient privilege under CINA Rule 9(b)(3)(F)(ii) because the child was under twelve. The court ordered the release of the records to all parties, finding that the child’s attorney’s objection did not nullify the GAL’s waiver. The child’s motions for reconsideration and for an in camera review were denied, and the records were disclosed.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether a child between ten and twelve can, through an attorney’s objection, override a GAL’s waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege in CINA proceedings. The court held that a child’s objection does not nullify the GAL’s waiver of the privilege. However, following an objection, the child bears the burden of showing that confidentiality should be maintained under the multi-factor framework of CINA Rule 9(b)(3)(D). The Supreme Court found that the superior court adequately applied the relevant factors and affirmed the decision to disclose the child’s records. View "Tanuk S. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

A federally recognized Alaska Native tribe, Dot Lake Village, is a member of an intertribal consortium known as the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). TCC, originally organized as a grassroots group in 1962 and incorporated as a nonprofit under Alaska law in 1971, provides governmental services—including healthcare—to its 42 member villages, most of which are federally recognized tribes. In 2021, TCC’s board of directors voted to recall its president, a decision Dot Lake Village challenged as violating TCC’s bylaws.Dot Lake Village filed a lawsuit in the Alaska Superior Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the recall and enforce procedural requirements for TCC meetings. TCC responded with a motion to dismiss under Alaska Civil Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the suit was barred by sovereign immunity because TCC is an arm of its member tribes. The superior court agreed, applying the multi-factor test from White v. University of California and Runyon ex rel. B.R. v. Association of Village Council Presidents, and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also awarded attorney’s fees to TCC as the prevailing party, finding that Dot Lake Village had waived sovereign immunity on the fee issue by filing suit.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the dismissal and the attorney’s fees award. The court held that TCC possesses tribal sovereign immunity as an arm of its member tribes under the multi-factor test from Ito v. Copper River Native Association, and that no exception to immunity applies. The court also held that by bringing the lawsuit, Dot Lake Village waived its sovereign immunity with respect to attorney’s fees. The orders of the superior court were affirmed. View "DOT LAKE VILLAGE v. DENÁ NENÁ HENASH" on Justia Law

The case involves a child custody dispute between the unmarried parents of a minor child. The father is a member of the Kenaitze Indian Tribe, and the child is eligible for tribal membership; the mother is not a tribal member. Both parents sought custody, but disagreed on whether the case should proceed in the Kenaitze Tribal Court or the Alaska Superior Court. The father first filed a non-emergency custody petition in tribal court but soon asked to withdraw it after reaching a temporary agreement with the mother. Afterward, the mother filed petitions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) against the father in state court, receiving a short-term order. While the long-term DVPO was pending, the father filed a second custody petition in tribal court, and the tribal court notified both parties of a custody hearing. Later, the mother filed a custody complaint in state superior court.The Alaska Superior Court reviewed motions from both parties. The father argued that because he first filed in tribal court, the tribal court should decide the matter. The mother contended the tribal court lacked jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and that she did not consent to tribal jurisdiction. The superior court found the tribal court had exercised jurisdiction first and dismissed the state custody case, pending acceptance by the tribal court. The mother appealed the dismissal, and the superior court stayed its order during the appeal. The father cross-appealed the stay.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska held that the tribal court was the proper forum for the custody dispute because the father's petition was filed there before the mother initiated state custody proceedings. The court clarified that, when simultaneous custody actions are filed in both tribal and state courts, the court where the matter is first filed is the preferred forum. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state case and found the issue of the stay pending appeal to be moot. View "Mallette v. Adams" on Justia Law

A child with multiple disabilities was living with his adoptive parents and several adult siblings, including one sibling with severe mental health issues who engaged in violent behavior. The Office of Children’s Services (OCS) became involved after incidents of domestic violence and reports that the parents were not sufficiently protecting the child. Despite OCS’s warnings and referrals to support organizations, the parents repeatedly allowed the violent sibling back into the home, exposing the child to further risk. Over several years, OCS provided rehabilitative services and created case plans requiring the mother to engage in parenting classes, substance abuse treatment, and measures to keep her adult children out if they were dangerous.The Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Palmer, initially placed the child in OCS custody and appointed a guardian ad litem. The Tribe intervened, and the mother stipulated at an adjudication hearing that the child was in need of aid. OCS continued to provide services and monitored compliance with the case plan, but the mother allowed the adult siblings, including the violent one, to return home. The mother partially engaged with required services but failed to demonstrate sustained protective capacity. OCS eventually filed a petition to terminate parental rights. At trial, testimony from caseworkers, experts, and law enforcement highlighted ongoing risks and the mother’s inability to remedy the unsafe conditions.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the termination order. It held that the Superior Court did not err in finding the child was in need of aid due to substantial risk of mental injury from exposure to domestic violence. The Supreme Court affirmed that OCS made active efforts to reunify the family, that the mother did not remedy the conduct placing the child at risk, and that returning the child to her custody would likely result in serious harm. The Court further held that termination was in the child’s best interests and affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling. View "Erin I. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

A newborn child was taken into state custody shortly after birth due to testing positive for addictive substances and requiring intensive medical care for withdrawal. The mother, who initially sought substance abuse treatment, was involuntarily discharged from her program for rule violations and aggression. After her discharge, she failed to participate in drug testing and further treatment, and disengaged from the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) for about a year. The child, considered an “Indian child” under federal law, was eventually placed in a foster home compliant with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The father was largely absent and uninvolved. After nearly the child’s entire life in state custody, the agency petitioned to terminate parental rights.The Superior Court for the Third Judicial District in Anchorage held a termination trial. The OCS presented testimony from a substance abuse expert and a cultural expert from the child’s tribe, as required by ICWA. The cultural expert, who was a tribal elder and had relevant experience, testified generally about substance abuse, the importance of child safety, and the parents’ noncooperation, but provided little detail about the tribe’s specific cultural standards as they related to the mother’s conduct. The superior court found clear and convincing evidence of risk of harm to the child, relied on the expert testimony, and terminated the mother’s parental rights.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska found that, although the expert was qualified, his testimony did not sufficiently contextualize the mother’s conduct within the tribe’s social and cultural standards, as required by ICWA. The court held that such testimony must be specifically grounded in the facts of the case and provide meaningful cultural context. Because this standard was not met, the Supreme Court reversed the termination of parental rights and remanded for further proceedings. View "Viva G. v. State" on Justia Law

Two parents, Ruby and Jaspar, challenged the termination of their parental rights to their two children, both of whom are considered Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) due to their mother’s tribal membership. Both parents had longstanding substance abuse issues, and the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) became involved after incidents of neglect, drug exposure, and unsanitary living conditions, including both children testing positive for opioids at birth and after the family’s eviction. The children were removed from the home and placed with relatives, while OCS provided the parents with case plans, referrals to treatment, visitation arrangements, and repeated efforts to maintain contact and assist with reunification.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Juneau, oversaw proceedings in which both parents stipulated to probable cause that their children were in need of aid. Over time, both parents disengaged from OCS and became largely unreachable, prompting OCS to increase its efforts to locate them through various means, including collaboration with tribal representatives, outreach at shelters, and the use of multiple databases. Despite intermittent contact and some attempts by the parents to reengage, the children remained in foster care for nearly three years while OCS continued providing services and support to the children and their caregivers.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, the parents argued that OCS failed to make “active efforts” to reunify the family as required by ICWA, and the mother further argued that the court erred in finding her continued custody likely to harm the children and that termination was in their best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the termination, holding that OCS made thorough and diligent efforts under ICWA, that the record supported the finding of likely harm if the children were returned to the parents, and that termination was in the children’s best interests. View "Ruby C. v. State" on Justia Law

A mother gave birth to a child who was eligible for enrollment in an Indian tribe as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The mother admitted to using methamphetamine during pregnancy, which led to an initial report to state authorities, though the child remained in her care as he did not test positive for drugs. Several months later, the child was found unattended in a hotel room under the care of an adult suspected of being under the influence, prompting the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) to take emergency custody. The father, who was incarcerated at the time, was identified and participated in early proceedings by telephone. Following his release, he attempted to engage in the case plan and visited his son, but over the next two and a half years, OCS assigned five different caseworkers to the family. The father experienced periods of incarceration, lapses in contact, and personal challenges, but he also took parenting classes, sought substance abuse assessment, and maintained some visitation.The Superior Court for the Third Judicial District, Anchorage, adjudicated the child as being in need of aid and later terminated the father’s parental rights on grounds of abandonment and substance abuse. At trial, the court found that OCS had made active efforts to reunify the family, relying on the preparation of a case plan, some referrals for substance abuse testing, and attempts to contact the father, even though it recognized that OCS’s efforts were not perfect, especially during periods of the father’s incarceration.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether OCS’s actions satisfied ICWA’s requirement that “active efforts” be made to prevent the breakup of an Indian family. The court held that OCS’s efforts were passive rather than active because it failed to make necessary referrals, provide adequate support services, and consistently engage with the father. The Supreme Court of Alaska reversed the termination of parental rights and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jace B. v. State" on Justia Law

A child and her sister, both recognized as Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), were removed from their parents due to concerns about their welfare. After an unsuccessful initial foster placement, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) placed the children with their mother’s cousin, Petra, in Seattle. Petra is a member of the children’s tribe. Upon arrival, the children had dental and nutritional issues. Although Petra arranged dental surgery for one child, she did not obtain follow-up care for the other child, Ax adée, whose dental problems persisted untreated during two years in Petra’s care. Petra also imposed dietary restrictions on Ax adée, resulting in significant stagnation in the child’s growth.After Petra requested that the other child be moved due to behavioral concerns, OCS placed both children with Chastity, a licensed therapeutic foster parent and tribal member in Alaska. Following this transfer, Ax adée received extensive dental treatment and began gaining weight after dietary restrictions were lifted. Petra challenged OCS’s decision in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, First Judicial District, Ketchikan, arguing she was a suitable foster parent and that OCS had not justified the placement change.After a six-day evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that Petra had failed to address Ax adée’s dental and nutritional needs, leading to significant health concerns. The court concluded that Petra was not a suitable foster parent and upheld OCS’s decision to place the child in a lower-preference ICWA foster home.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case and affirmed the superior court’s order. The main holding is that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that Petra was not a suitable foster parent due to her failure to meet the child’s basic dental and nutritional needs, justifying placement in a lower-preference home under ICWA. View "Petra J. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

A mining company sought to develop an open pit gold mine in the Kuskokwim River watershed, on lands owned by Alaska Native Corporations. To operate the mine, the company needed state permits for a natural gas pipeline right-of-way across state lands and for water appropriations to dewater the mining pit and support operations. Local tribes objected, arguing that the mine and its associated infrastructure would have significant impacts on the watershed, which is culturally and economically important to them. The Department of Natural Resources approved the pipeline right-of-way and water use permits after considering the impacts of the permitted activities themselves, but not the cumulative impacts of the entire mining project.The tribes appealed the Department’s decisions to the Commissioner, arguing that both the Water Use Act and the Alaska Constitution required consideration of the cumulative impacts of the whole mining project. The Commissioner denied the appeals, finding that the Department was only required to consider the effects of the permitted activities themselves. The tribes then appealed to the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage. The superior court affirmed the Department’s decisions, ruling that the agency was not required to conduct a cumulative impacts analysis of the entire mine project under either statute or the constitution.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether the Department was required to consider the cumulative impacts of the entire mining project when granting the pipeline right-of-way and water use permits. The court held that neither the Water Use Act nor the Right-of-Way Leasing Act required consideration of downstream effects of mining activity enabled by the permits. The court also held that Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution did not require the Department to consider the costs and benefits of developing private resources on private lands when deciding whether to grant permits for the use of state resources. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s judgments. View "Orutsararmiut Native Council v. Boyle" on Justia Law

After the birth of a child who qualified as an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) in Alaska took emergency custody due to the mother’s substance use during pregnancy. Initially, no relatives were available for placement, so the child was placed with a non-relative foster parent. Nearly two and a half years later, the mother requested that the child be placed with his great-grandmother. OCS denied this request, citing unsafe conditions in the great-grandmother’s home, including excessive clutter that posed safety risks. The great-grandmother made some improvements but did not sufficiently address the concerns. OCS also expressed doubts about her judgment and ability to protect the child, referencing past incidents involving other family members.The Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Fourth Judicial District, held a placement review hearing after the great-grandmother requested judicial review of OCS’s denial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that OCS did not abuse its discretion in denying the placement, determining that the great-grandmother’s home remained unsuitable and that her past actions raised concerns about her ability to prioritize the child’s needs. The court also concluded that OCS was not required to provide the great-grandmother with reasonable efforts to make her home suitable, as she was not the child’s parent or guardian.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska considered whether ICWA required OCS to demonstrate “active efforts” to assist the great-grandmother in overcoming obstacles to placement. The court held that ICWA’s active efforts requirement applies to preserving or reunifying the family unit with a parent or Indian custodian, not to extended family members seeking placement. Therefore, OCS was not required to provide active efforts to the great-grandmother in this context. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision upholding OCS’s denial of placement. View "Betsy F. v. State" on Justia Law