The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a superior court's decision to terminate a mother's parental rights to her Indian child in a case governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), rejecting multiple arguments raised by the appellant mother.
In *Jada M. v. State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children's Services*, decided December 3, 2025, the state's highest court issued a memorandum opinion upholding the Fourth Judicial District Superior Court's termination order. The case involved Tye, born to Jada M. in February 2020, who qualifies as an Indian child under ICWA protections.
The mother appealed the superior court's termination decision on four primary grounds, all of which the Alaska Supreme Court rejected. Jada M. argued that the superior court erred in finding that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) made active efforts to reunify the family, a key requirement under ICWA's heightened standards for child welfare proceedings involving Native American children.
She also challenged the court's determination that she was given a reasonable amount of time to remedy the behaviors and conditions that placed her child at substantial risk. Under ICWA, courts must provide parents with remedial services and reasonable time to address issues before terminating parental rights.
Additionally, the mother contested the superior court's finding that the child faced substantial risk of suffering mental or physical damage if returned to her care. This standard represents ICWA's elevated burden of proof for termination proceedings, requiring clear and convincing evidence that continued custody by the parent would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
Finally, Jada M. disputed the court's conclusion that termination was in the child's best interest, another critical factor courts must consider in ICWA cases.
The Alaska Supreme Court, in its memorandum decision, found no factual or legal errors in the superior court's analysis and rulings on these issues. Chief Justice Carney and Justices Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec all participated in the decision.
The case was heard in Fairbanks before Superior Court Judge Kirk Schwalm. Megan M. Rowe of Anchorage represented the appellant mother, while Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Teitell and Attorney General Treg Taylor represented the state.
ICWA, enacted by Congress in 1978, establishes special protections for Indian children in state child welfare proceedings. The federal law requires state courts to apply heightened standards when considering the removal of Indian children from their families, including the "active efforts" requirement for reunification services and elevated burdens of proof for termination decisions.
The Act was designed to address historical practices that resulted in the large-scale removal of Native American children from their families and communities, often without adequate justification or efforts at family preservation. ICWA gives tribal governments a significant role in child welfare decisions affecting their members and establishes preferences for placement with extended family, tribal members, or other Indian families.
In termination proceedings under ICWA, state agencies must demonstrate that they provided services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts were unsuccessful. The "active efforts" standard is more demanding than the "reasonable efforts" required in non-ICWA cases.
Courts must also find by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody by the parent would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. This standard is higher than the "clear and convincing evidence" standard typically applied in state child welfare cases.
The Alaska Supreme Court's decision represents a memorandum opinion, which under Alaska Appellate Rule 214(d) does not create binding legal precedent. However, the ruling demonstrates the court's application of ICWA's protective standards in a termination case where the state met its heightened burden of proof.
The case highlights the complex intersection of state child protection laws and federal Indian law protections. While ICWA provides significant safeguards for Indian families, courts can still terminate parental rights when the statutory standards are met and termination serves the child's best interests.
The timing of Tye's birth in February 2020 means the child was approximately five years old when the superior court issued its termination order, and the case involved several years of proceedings before reaching the Alaska Supreme Court for final resolution.
The identity of Tye's father remains unknown according to court records, which may have complicated reunification efforts and placement decisions in the case. ICWA's placement preferences typically prioritize placement with extended family members when parents cannot provide care.
This case demonstrates that while ICWA provides enhanced protections for Indian children and families, Alaska courts will uphold termination decisions when the statutory requirements are satisfied and agencies have made genuine efforts at family preservation that proved unsuccessful.