## Facts

- J.S., an Alaska Native father, had three sons: Avery (born 1988) and twins Lyle and Carl (born 1989).
- The children were previously involved in state custody proceedings; custody was transferred to J.S. after the State sought removal from the mother when the twins tested positive for cocaine at birth.
- In January 1996, the State removed the boys from J.S.’s care after reports that he sexually abused all three children.
- J.S. was charged with multiple sexual-abuse offenses and was convicted of four counts of first-degree sexual abuse of a minor and one count of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor.
- J.S. received a lengthy prison sentence and no-contact conditions with his sons and other minors.
- Evidence presented in the termination trial included expert testimony that the boys suffered serious emotional harm (including depression and post-traumatic stress) and that reunification with J.S. would be detrimental; experts also addressed a significant risk of reoffending.

## Issues

1. Whether the State satisfied ICWA’s requirement that it make “active efforts” to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family before terminating J.S.’s parental rights.
2. Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by qualified expert testimony, that continued custody by J.S. was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the children under ICWA.
3. Whether Alaska’s statutory termination requirements were met by clear and convincing evidence, and whether termination was in the children’s best interests.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment terminating J.S.’s parental rights.
- The court held that the superior court could find the State’s ICWA “active efforts” obligation was satisfied under the circumstances, given J.S.’s sexual-abuse convictions and the evidence that reunification would be unsafe and harmful.
- The court held that the record supported, beyond a reasonable doubt and with qualified expert testimony, that the children would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if returned to J.S.’s custody.
- The court upheld findings that the children were in need of aid, that J.S. had not remedied the conditions creating the risk, and that termination served the children’s best interests.

## Legal Principles

- ICWA requires proof that active efforts were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to prevent the breakup of an Indian family and that those efforts were unsuccessful.
- In termination proceedings involving severe intrafamilial abuse, a court may consider whether additional reunification-focused services would be futile or would expose children to further harm when evaluating ICWA active efforts.
- ICWA also requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony from qualified expert witnesses, that continued custody by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
- Alaska termination law requires clear and convincing evidence of child-in-need-of-aid status, failure to remedy the harmful conditions, and a finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.
- ICWA’s federal standards operate alongside state termination standards; both sets of requirements must be satisfied when applicable.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed termination of J.S.’s parental rights, concluding that ICWA’s active-efforts and beyond-a-reasonable-doubt protections were met in light of J.S.’s sexual-abuse convictions and expert evidence that continued custody would likely cause serious harm, and that termination satisfied Alaska’s child-protection and best-interests requirements.


J.S. v. State, 50 P.3d 388 (Alaska 2002)