The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to terminate parental rights in a case involving three Indian children protected under the Indian Child Welfare Act. The memorandum opinion and judgment, issued January 14, 2026, concluded a five-year legal battle between parents Zeke N. and Jordyn A. and the State of Alaska's Department of Family and Community Services.
The case originated in 2019 when the Office of Children's Services assumed emergency custody of the three children due to the father's substance use issues and the mother's incarceration. The children, classified as Indian children under ICWA, received special protections requiring the state to demonstrate "active efforts" to prevent family separation before terminating parental rights.
Over the subsequent five years, OCS developed case plans and offered various services aimed at family reunification. However, according to court records, both parents engaged only sporadically with the provided services and requirements. The superior court in Anchorage, presided over by Judge Josie Garton, ultimately found that OCS had satisfied its heightened duty under ICWA to provide active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
The consolidated appeals, numbered S-19250 and S-19259, challenged the Third Judicial District Superior Court's termination order. The parents were represented by separate counsel, with Michael L. Horowitz of the Law Office of Michael Horowitz in Kingsley, Michigan, representing Zeke N., and Chris Peloso of Peloso Law in Juneau representing Jordyn A. The state was represented by Senior Assistant Attorney General Mary Ann Lundquist from Fairbanks, working under Attorney General Treg R. Taylor.
The case also involved a guardian ad litem, represented by Assistant Public Advocate Paul F. McDermott and Public Advocate James Stinson, both from Anchorage, ensuring the children's interests were independently represented throughout the proceedings.
The Alaska Supreme Court's five-member panel, consisting of Chief Justice Carney and Justices Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, heard the consolidated appeals. The court issued its decision as a memorandum opinion under Alaska Appellate Rule 214, which means the decision does not create binding legal precedent for future cases.
This limitation on precedential value is significant in family law cases, as it means other courts are not bound to follow this decision's reasoning in similar ICWA cases. However, the decision still provides guidance on how Alaska courts apply ICWA's "active efforts" standard in termination proceedings.
The Indian Child Welfare Act, enacted by Congress in 1978, established special protections for Indian children in state custody proceedings. The law requires states to demonstrate "active efforts" to preserve Indian families before terminating parental rights, a higher standard than the "reasonable efforts" required for non-Indian families. States must also show that continued custody by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
ICWA cases often involve complex cultural considerations and require coordination between state courts, tribal authorities, and federal agencies. The law was designed to address historical patterns of Indian children being removed from their families and placed with non-Indian families, often severing cultural ties.
The five-year timeline in this case reflects the extended efforts typically required in ICWA proceedings. Courts must provide parents with adequate time and services to address the conditions that led to removal, while also considering the children's need for stability and permanency.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in balancing parental rights with child protection, particularly in cases involving substance abuse and incarceration. When parents struggle to consistently engage with services over extended periods, courts must weigh the likelihood of successful reunification against the children's long-term welfare.
The superior court's original termination order, now affirmed by the Alaska Supreme Court, cleared the way for permanent placement of the three children. In ICWA cases, preference is typically given to placement with extended family members, tribal members, or other Indian families when possible.
This case represents one of many ICWA appeals handled by Alaska courts, which frequently deal with child welfare issues affecting Alaska Native families. The state's unique demographics and the prevalence of substance abuse and related social challenges in some communities create ongoing tensions between family preservation efforts and child protection imperatives.
The memorandum opinion's issuance in January 2026 concludes the appellate process for this particular case, though the specific reasoning and holdings remain confidential pending full publication of the court's decision. The case serves as a reminder of the complex legal and social issues surrounding child welfare in Indian Country and the careful balance courts must strike between cultural preservation and child safety.