active efforts requirement in Alaska

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1268 (Alaska 2008); see also Ronan F. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 539 P.3d 507 , 514-15 (Alaska 2023) (stating courts may consider whether period when OCS made active efforts compensated for period it did not). -10- 2045 fruition.’ ”21 Nevertheless, “the active efforts requirement does not require perfection.”22 A parent’s lack of willingness to cooperate with OCS can impact a court’s active efforts analysis in three ways: “(1) it can excuse further active efforts once it is clear those efforts would be futile

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1268 (Alaska 2008); see also Ronan F. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 539 P.3d 507 , 514-15 (Alaska 2023) (stating courts may consider whether period when OCS made active efforts compensated for period it did not). -10- 2045 fruition.’ ”21 Nevertheless, “the active efforts requirement does not require perfection.”22 A parent’s lack of willingness to cooperate with OCS can impact a court’s active efforts analysis in three ways: “(1) it can excuse further active efforts once it is clear those efforts would be futile

2022Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099, 1116 (Alaska 2010) (listing active efforts as one of several (continued...) -12- 7598 However, “the active efforts requirement does not require perfection.”16 A court’s “concern is not with whether [OCS’s] efforts were ideal, but with whether they crossed the threshold between passive and active efforts.”17 We have explained the difference between passive and active efforts as follows: Passive efforts are where a plan is drawn up and the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing it to fruition.

2021Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099, 1114 (Alaska 2010)) (affirming active efforts finding despite father identifying lapses by OCS, noting “superior court [is] not required to make particular findings as to . . . each component of the case plan”). -11- 1868 such as substance abuse assessments, hair follicle testing and urinalyses, parenting classes, and psychological evaluations.23 The services OCS provided to both the children and Kevin to improve their bonding and attachment exceed the threshold required to meet the active efforts requirement; the superior court noted they were “

2026Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 314 P.3d 518, 526 (Alaska 2013)). -10- 7811 that a mistake has been made.’ ”10 However, whether the trial court’s factual findings satisfy ICWA is a question of law that we review de novo.11 DISCUSSION In ICWA cases, the court may not terminate parental rights unless it makes a finding that OCS made active efforts to provide remedial services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that these efforts have been unsuccessful.12 This appeal centers on the superior court’s conclusion that OCS made active efforts.13 Jace argues that OCS’s efforts h

2026Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 314 P.3d 518, 526 (Alaska 2013)). -10- 7811 that a mistake has been made.’ ”10 However, whether the trial court’s factual findings satisfy ICWA is a question of law that we review de novo.11 DISCUSSION In ICWA cases, the court may not terminate parental rights unless it makes a finding that OCS made active efforts to provide remedial services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that these efforts have been unsuccessful.12 This appeal centers on the superior court’s conclusion that OCS made active efforts.13 Jace argues that OCS’s efforts h

2020She argues that this lack of effort by OCS “prevented her from completing her case plan and regaining custody of Selena.” “But the active efforts requirement does not require perfection,”14 and “courts are to look to OCS’s efforts throughout the entire case to determine whether OCS made active efforts.”15 The record supports the superior court’s conclusion that OCS made active efforts to provide Viviane with the services necessary for the reunification 13 See Sylvia L., 343 P.3d at 433 (quoting E.A., 46 P.3d at 990 ). 14 Pravat P., 249 P.3d at 272 . 15 Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2017While there were some minor gaps in OCS’s efforts to help Hanson reunite with his daughter, OCS’s extensive and long-term efforts satisfy the active efforts requirement under ICWA. 31 Id. at 1189 . 32 E.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986, 991 (Alaska 2002) (quoting N.A. v. State, DFYS, 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001)). 33 343 P.3d 425, 433 (Alaska 2015). 34 Id. at 431-32 . 35 Id. at 433 . 36 Id. -24- 1612 E.

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 249 P.3d 264, 272 (Alaska 2011). -8- 2009 A parent’s unwillingness to cooperate with OCS can impact a court’s active efforts analysis in three ways: “(1) it can excuse further active efforts once it is clear those efforts would be futile; (2) it can excuse ‘minor failures by [OCS]’; and (3) it can influence what actions qualify as active efforts.”14 However, “[a] parent’s lack of cooperation or unwillingness to participate in treatment does not excuse OCS from making active efforts and proving that it has made them.”15 In this way, an active efforts determinati

2022Finally, a parent’s engagement with services is relevant to OCS’s active efforts.44 While a parent’s lack of cooperation does not excuse OCS from continuing to make active efforts, “it can influence what actions qualify as active efforts.”45 D.A.M. was not simply reluctant to engage with some OCS services; he refused to contact 42 Pravat P., 249 P.3d at 272 (rejecting father’s argument that OCS failed to make active efforts when it did not provide specific services because “the active efforts requirement does not require perfection”). 43 Philip J., 314 P.3d at 528 (Alaska 2013) (quotingLucy J.

2017Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099, 1114 (Alaska 2010). 14 N.A. v. State, DFYS, 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001) (citing A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999)). 15 Id. at 602-03 (quoting A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ). -11- 1632 to [do this] in a way that will satisfy the active efforts requirement, OCS must reasonably tailor those steps to the client’s individual capabilities.”16 In determining the scope of OCS’s active efforts duty, the superior court may consider the parent’s “demonstrated lack of willingness to participate in treatment.”17 We

2017Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099, 1114 (Alaska 2010). 14 N.A. v. State, DFYS, 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001) (citing A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999)). 15 Id. at 602-03 (quoting A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ). -11- 1632 to [do this] in a way that will satisfy the active efforts requirement, OCS must reasonably tailor those steps to the client’s individual capabilities.”16 In determining the scope of OCS’s active efforts duty, the superior court may consider the parent’s “demonstrated lack of willingness to participate in treatment.”17 We

2026Although it is “good practice” for the court to actively monitor compliance with the active efforts requirement at every hearing, Mona J., 511 P.3d at 564, because we consider OCS’s efforts throughout the case, Anton K., 554 P.3d at 466, a party does not necessarily waive challenges to OCS’s efforts if not raised before trial. 24 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2026). 25 Tiffany B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2026“However, the active efforts requirement does not require perfection.”33 And we look to OCS’s “involvement in its entirety” when we review a finding of active efforts.34 Considering the agency’s efforts in their entirety, and given Kendall’s highly transient living situation and her demonstrated lack of interest in communicating with OCS, we conclude that the superior court did not err by ruling that OCS made active efforts. 33 Mona J., 511 P.3d at 561 (quoting Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2017It is unrealistic to expect OCS to provide rehabilitative sex offender treatment to a federal prisoner, housed out of state, while that prisoner is already engaged in a federal program of intensive sex offender therapy.67 Considering Jude’s treatment at Devens in the court’s active efforts analysis was not error. 64 A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ; see also Jon S., 212 P.3d at 763 n.26 (“Although incarceration does not absolve the state’s active efforts duty, the court may consider the impact of incarceration on the possibility of active remedial efforts.”). 65 945 P.2d 296 , 306 (Alaska 1997). 66 Jon

2017It is unrealistic to expect OCS to provide rehabilitative sex offender treatment to a federal prisoner, housed out of state, while that prisoner is already engaged in a federal program of intensive sex offender therapy.67 Considering Jude’s treatment at Devens in the court’s active efforts analysis was not error. 64 A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ; see also Jon S., 212 P.3d at 763 n.26 (“Although incarceration does not absolve the state’s active efforts duty, the court may consider the impact of incarceration on the possibility of active remedial efforts.”). 65 945 P.2d 296 , 306 (Alaska 1997). 66 Jon

2017It is unrealistic to expect OCS to provide rehabilitative sex offender treatment to a federal prisoner, housed out of state, while that prisoner is already engaged in a federal program of intensive sex offender therapy.67 Considering Jude’s treatment at Devens in the court’s active efforts analysis was not error. 64 A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ; see also Jon S., 212 P.3d at 763 n.26 (“Although incarceration does not absolve the state’s active efforts duty, the court may consider the impact of incarceration on the possibility of active remedial efforts.”). 65 945 P.2d 296 , 306 (Alaska 1997). 66 Jon

2017It is unrealistic to expect OCS to provide rehabilitative sex offender treatment to a federal prisoner, housed out of state, while that prisoner is already engaged in a federal program of intensive sex offender therapy.67 Considering Jude’s treatment at Devens in the court’s active efforts analysis was not error. 64 A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ; see also Jon S., 212 P.3d at 763 n.26 (“Although incarceration does not absolve the state’s active efforts duty, the court may consider the impact of incarceration on the possibility of active remedial efforts.”). 65 945 P.2d 296 , 306 (Alaska 1997). 66 Jon

2020She argues that this lack of effort by OCS “prevented her from completing her case plan and regaining custody of Selena.” “But the active efforts requirement does not require perfection,”14 and “courts are to look to OCS’s efforts throughout the entire case to determine whether OCS made active efforts.”15 The record supports the superior court’s conclusion that OCS made active efforts to provide Viviane with the services necessary for the reunification 13 See Sylvia L., 343 P.3d at 433 (quoting E.A., 46 P.3d at 990 ). 14 Pravat P., 249 P.3d at 272 . 15 Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2017While there were some minor gaps in OCS’s efforts to help Hanson reunite with his daughter, OCS’s extensive and long-term efforts satisfy the active efforts requirement under ICWA. 31 Id. at 1189 . 32 E.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986, 991 (Alaska 2002) (quoting N.A. v. State, DFYS, 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001)). 33 343 P.3d 425, 433 (Alaska 2015). 34 Id. at 431-32 . 35 Id. at 433 . 36 Id. -24- 1612 E.

2023Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 490 P.3d 357, 365 (Alaska 2021)). 10 Ronald H., 490 P.3d at 365 . 11 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d); CINA Rule 17(c). 12 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2016). 13 Id. -10- 1964 not active ‘where a plan is drawn up and the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing it to fruition,’ but rather [are active] where the ‘caseworker takes the client through the steps of the plan.’ ” 14 Our conclusion that OCS failed to meet the active efforts standard at the disposition hearing rests on several related concerns, including OCS’s failure to update Katie’s and Drake’s case pl

2023Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 490 P.3d 357, 365 (Alaska 2021)). 10 Ronald H., 490 P.3d at 365 . 11 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d); CINA Rule 17(c). 12 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2016). 13 Id. -10- 1964 not active ‘where a plan is drawn up and the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing it to fruition,’ but rather [are active] where the ‘caseworker takes the client through the steps of the plan.’ ” 14 Our conclusion that OCS failed to meet the active efforts standard at the disposition hearing rests on several related concerns, including OCS’s failure to update Katie’s and Drake’s case pl

2024Under ICWA, when OCS seeks to terminate parental rights to “an Indian child under State law [OCS] shall satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.”11 “[A]ctive efforts will be found when OCS ‘takes the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be performed on its own,’ but not when ‘the client must develop his or her own resources towards bringing [the plan] to fruition.’ ”12 Nevertheless, “the ac

2020Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 291 P.3d 957, 962 (Alaska 2013). 32 Marcia V., 201 P.3d at 502 (citation omitted). 33 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2018). 34 Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 442 P.3d 731, 736 (Alaska 2019) (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2019)). -17- 1761 formula’ exists for distinguishing between active and passive efforts.”35 This analysis considers “[OCS’s] involvement in its entirety.”36 “[T]he active efforts requirement does not require perfection,” but rather requires that the State’s efforts “cross[] the threshold between passive and

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 399 P.3d 646, 654 (Alaska 2017)). 27 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d); see CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 28 Philip J. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2021Active efforts . . . [are] where the state caseworker takes the client through the steps of the plan rather than requiring that the plan be performed on its own.[5] “ ‘[N]o pat formula’ exists for distinguishing between active and passive efforts,” so we “conduct[] an active efforts inquiry on a case-by-case basis.”6 “Whether the evidence in the record supports the superior court’s active-efforts ruling is a mixed question of law and fact.”7 We review questions of law de novo,8 and we review the superior court’s factual findings for clear error.9 A factual finding is clearly erroneous if our “

2020Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 442 P.3d 731, 737-38 (Alaska 2019) (holding that OCS had made active efforts to reunify family despite immediately filing petition for termination after concerns regarding father’s sexual misconduct surfaced, when superior court determined case was “unrecoverable” and father’s “desire for more time to seek treatment for his sexual misconduct issues was outweighed by [child]’s need for permanency”). -9- 1772 of her family but that its efforts were frustrated by Viviane’s lack of engagement.

2020Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 291 P.3d 957, 962 (Alaska 2013). 32 Marcia V., 201 P.3d at 502 (citation omitted). 33 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2018). 34 Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 442 P.3d 731, 736 (Alaska 2019) (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2019)). -17- 1761 formula’ exists for distinguishing between active and passive efforts.”35 This analysis considers “[OCS’s] involvement in its entirety.”36 “[T]he active efforts requirement does not require perfection,” but rather requires that the State’s efforts “cross[] the threshold between passive and

2017Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 182 P.3d 1110, 1114 (Alaska 2008). -21- 7168 with an incarcerated parent satisfied the active efforts requirement.”70 And we are reluctant to say that “active efforts” requires sending a child across the country to visit an incarcerated parent.

2017Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 182 P.3d 1110, 1114 (Alaska 2008). -21- 7168 with an incarcerated parent satisfied the active efforts requirement.”70 And we are reluctant to say that “active efforts” requires sending a child across the country to visit an incarcerated parent.

2017While there were some minor gaps in OCS’s efforts to help Hanson reunite with his daughter, OCS’s extensive and long-term efforts satisfy the active efforts requirement under ICWA. 31 Id. at 1189 . 32 E.A. v. State, Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 46 P.3d 986, 991 (Alaska 2002) (quoting N.A. v. State, DFYS, 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001)). 33 343 P.3d 425, 433 (Alaska 2015). 34 Id. at 431-32 . 35 Id. at 433 . 36 Id. -24- 1612 E.

2017Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 244 P.3d 1099, 1114 (Alaska 2010). 14 N.A. v. State, DFYS, 19 P.3d 597, 603 (Alaska 2001) (citing A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999)). 15 Id. at 602-03 (quoting A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ). -11- 1632 to [do this] in a way that will satisfy the active efforts requirement, OCS must reasonably tailor those steps to the client’s individual capabilities.”16 In determining the scope of OCS’s active efforts duty, the superior court may consider the parent’s “demonstrated lack of willingness to participate in treatment.”17 We

2017Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 278 P.3d 886, 891 (Alaska 2012) (rejecting an active efforts challenge based on OCS’s failure to place the child in an ICWA-compliant household where the placement decision did not affect the parent’s “ability to participate in remedial efforts”). 24 Parker also argues that OCS’s failure to place the children in Pilot Station creates a “problematic de facto prejudice against reunification . . . as Anchorage will always be the location of greater access to western therapy.” While this concern is troubling, Hughes’s undisputed testimony was that Pilot Station

2013Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 278 P.3d 886, 891 (Alaska 2012) (“[F]ailure to follow ICWA’s placement preferences cannot provide a basis for determining that OCS failed to undertake active (continued...) -10- 6742 may be relevant to an active efforts analysis — applies when a child’s placement directly impacts a parent’s ability to participate in remedial efforts.18 That exception is not implicated here.

2015In support Shirley cites Lucy J. v. Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children’s Services, in which we addressed a mother’s disabilities and stated that “[i]n order to ‘take[] the client through the steps of reunification’ in a way that will satisfy the active efforts requirement [under the Indian Child Welfare Act], OCS must reasonably tailor those steps to the client’s individual capabilities.”31 Although the efforts required of OCS are less stringent in this case because it does not involve an Indian child,32 OCS is nonetheless required to take into account the parent’s limi

2013Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 212 P.3d 756, 763-64 (Alaska 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 Wilson W. v. State, Office of Children’s Servs., 185 P.3d 94, 101-02 (Alaska 2008) (citing K.N. v. State, 856 P.2d 468 (Alaska 1993) and A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999)). 24 Id. at 102. -10- 1468 workers’ “efforts were the kind of efforts previously noted by this [c]ourt to fall short of the active efforts requirement.” There was ample testimony to support a finding that OCS made the required efforts to assist Wilson in light of his refusal t

2017It is unrealistic to expect OCS to provide rehabilitative sex offender treatment to a federal prisoner, housed out of state, while that prisoner is already engaged in a federal program of intensive sex offender therapy.67 Considering Jude’s treatment at Devens in the court’s active efforts analysis was not error. 64 A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ; see also Jon S., 212 P.3d at 763 n.26 (“Although incarceration does not absolve the state’s active efforts duty, the court may consider the impact of incarceration on the possibility of active remedial efforts.”). 65 945 P.2d 296 , 306 (Alaska 1997). 66 Jon

2017It is unrealistic to expect OCS to provide rehabilitative sex offender treatment to a federal prisoner, housed out of state, while that prisoner is already engaged in a federal program of intensive sex offender therapy.67 Considering Jude’s treatment at Devens in the court’s active efforts analysis was not error. 64 A.A., 982 P.2d at 261 ; see also Jon S., 212 P.3d at 763 n.26 (“Although incarceration does not absolve the state’s active efforts duty, the court may consider the impact of incarceration on the possibility of active remedial efforts.”). 65 945 P.2d 296 , 306 (Alaska 1997). 66 Jon

2026Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed. Reg. 38,778 , 38,813-14 (June 14, 2016). 21 See, e.g., Jada M. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 2025 WL 3472649 (Alaska Dec. 3, 2025) (urging courts “to pay close attention to this distinction” between “active” and “reasonable efforts”); Betsy F. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 576 P.3d 647 , 653 n.26 (Alaska 2025) (“We note, however, that given the substance of the argument before the superior court, it was peculiar for the court to refer to ‘reasonable efforts’ in a case controlled

2023Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., No. S-18147, 2022 WL 1162514 , at *5 (Alaska Apr. 20, 2022); see also Clark J., 483 P.3d at 903-04 (holding that active efforts directed toward mother earlier in case were insufficient to compensate for lack of effort toward father for rest of case). -11- 1964 The parties do not dispute that OCS’s efforts from August 2020 to August 2021 failed to satisfy the active efforts standard.

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 222 P.3d 841, 849 (Alaska 2009). 44 See A.M.

2018Arnold asserts that, although his “resistance to OCS efforts” may be a factor, ultimately the court erred in finding active 15 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 16 Philip J., 314 P.3d at 527 (quoting A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999)). 17 Dashiell R., 222 P.3d at 849 (citing A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995)). 18 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting A.M., 891 P.2d at 827 ). 19 Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2026Although it is “good practice” for the court to actively monitor compliance with the active efforts requirement at every hearing, Mona J., 511 P.3d at 564 , because we consider OCS’s efforts throughout the case, Anton K., 554 P.3d at 466 , a party does not necessarily waive challenges to OCS’s efforts if not raised before trial. 24 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2026). 25 Tiffany B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2026Although it is “good practice” for the court to actively monitor compliance with the active efforts requirement at every hearing, Mona J., 511 P.3d at 564, because we consider OCS’s efforts throughout the case, Anton K., 554 P.3d at 466, a party does not necessarily waive challenges to OCS’s efforts if not raised before trial. 24 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2026). 25 Tiffany B. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1268 (Alaska 2008); see also Ronan F. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 539 P.3d 507 , 514-15 (Alaska 2023) (stating courts may consider whether period when OCS made active efforts compensated for period it did not). -10- 2045 fruition.’ ”21 Nevertheless, “the active efforts requirement does not require perfection.”22 A parent’s lack of willingness to cooperate with OCS can impact a court’s active efforts analysis in three ways: “(1) it can excuse further active efforts once it is clear those efforts would be futile

2024Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 175 P.3d 1263, 1268 (Alaska 2008); see also Ronan F. v. State, Dep’t of Fam. & Cmty. Servs., Off. of Child.’s Servs., 539 P.3d 507 , 514-15 (Alaska 2023) (stating courts may consider whether period when OCS made active efforts compensated for period it did not). -10- 2045 fruition.’ ”21 Nevertheless, “the active efforts requirement does not require perfection.”22 A parent’s lack of willingness to cooperate with OCS can impact a court’s active efforts analysis in three ways: “(1) it can excuse further active efforts once it is clear those efforts would be futile

2021Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 365 P.3d 345, 350 (Alaska 2016). 27 See Duke S. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2020Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 291 P.3d 957, 962 (Alaska 2013). 32 Marcia V., 201 P.3d at 502 (citation omitted). 33 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2018). 34 Sam M. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., 442 P.3d 731, 736 (Alaska 2019) (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 23.2 (2019)). -17- 1761 formula’ exists for distinguishing between active and passive efforts.”35 This analysis considers “[OCS’s] involvement in its entirety.”36 “[T]he active efforts requirement does not require perfection,” but rather requires that the State’s efforts “cross[] the threshold between passive and

2019And the court found that although OCS continued to refer Tim for individual counseling, he did not follow up on the referral. 9 254 P.3d 1095, 1108 (Alaska 2011). -8- 1752 The court then turned to the period from September 2017 through the active efforts hearing in March 2018.

2018Arnold asserts that, although his “resistance to OCS efforts” may be a factor, ultimately the court erred in finding active 15 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 16 Philip J., 314 P.3d at 527 (quoting A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999)). 17 Dashiell R., 222 P.3d at 849 (citing A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995)). 18 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting A.M., 891 P.2d at 827 ). 19 Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.

2018Arnold asserts that, although his “resistance to OCS efforts” may be a factor, ultimately the court erred in finding active 15 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c)(2)(B). 16 Philip J., 314 P.3d at 527 (quoting A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256, 261 (Alaska 1999)). 17 Dashiell R., 222 P.3d at 849 (citing A.M. v. State, 891 P.2d 815, 827 (Alaska 1995)). 18 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting A.M., 891 P.2d at 827 ). 19 Pravat P. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Soc.