Active efforts determinations are difficult in light of the terrible fact patterns judges see in these cases. We should expect to see many more of these cases in many states, especially Alaska, where there appears to be divergent views.
ICWA active efforts
Idaho Court Decides ICWA Active Efforts/Qualified Expert Witness Case
Here is the opinion in Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare v. Doe.
Alaska SCT Decides ICWA Active Efforts Case
Here is the opinion.
Michigan COA Decides ICWA Active Efforts/Expert Witness Case
Here is the unpublished, per curiam opinion.
Michigan COA Decides ICWA Active Efforts Case
Here is the opinion in In the Matter of Dawson:
Montana Supreme Court Decides ICWA Case (Active Efforts/Expert Witness)
Alaska Supreme Court Decides ICWA Active Efforts Case
Colorado Appellate Court Issues Opinion in ICWA “Active Efforts” Case
Here is the opinion in In re C.Z.
An excerpt:
The record supports the trial court’s findings because the most critical components of father’s treatment plan required him to participate in mental health therapy, have a substance abuse evaluation and follow all treatment recommendations, submit to random urinalysis (UA) testing, take parenting classes, and have regular visitation with the child. Although he had a mental health assessment, he refused to participate in therapy because he did not believe he needed it. Moreover, he did not have a substance abuse evaluation, did not submit random UAs, did not attend parenting classes, and had only two visits with the child, which the caseworker testified did not go well. And although the department made referrals to treatment providers and provided the other services father needed to comply with his plan when he lived in Leadville, he did not take advantage of those services.
And: Continue reading
Turtle Talk 