MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT*
I. INTRODUCTION
Star page 1*1 A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to three of her children. She argues that the Office of Children's Services (OCS) failed to engage in active efforts to reunify her with two of the children by not sufficiently facilitating family therapy after halting visitation. Similarly, the mother argues that OCS failed to engage in reasonable efforts to reunify her with the third child because it paused visitation for one year. The mother also asserts that the superior court clearly erred by finding that she had failed to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal from her care. Observing no error, we affirm the termination of the mother's parental rights.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. OCS Investigation
Kristin C. is the mother of seven children. This appeal relates to three of her children: Allie (11), Amanda (9), and Lucia (7).1 Allie and Amanda have the same father and are Indian children as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).2 Lucia has a different father, Andrew, and she is not an Indian child. Neither father's parental rights are at issue in this appeal.3
OCS began investigating the family in May 2019 after Kristin's dog bit Amanda's face severely enough to require surgery. Kristin was too intoxicated at the time of the attack to immediately drive Amanda to the emergency room. Kristin later had friends shoot the dog outside while the children were in the house. The same dog had also previously bitten Allie, and the wounds had been severe enough to require medical attention.4
OCS also learned that there was domestic violence occurring between Kristin and Andrew, who had been recently released from jail.5 OCS received further information that Kristin had been physically violent toward her mother and one of Kristin's former domestic partners. OCS's investigation revealed additional concerns about the children's mental health, poor hygiene, and lice infestations. Other family members reported that Kristin tended to leave the children unsupervised and disciplined them by leaving them on the porch without adequate clothing for the weather. During a walkthrough of Kristin's home, an OCS worker did not observe any immediate dangers, but he saw piles of dog feces and smelled urine.
B. Removal, Visitation, And OCS Efforts
Star page 2*2 OCS filed a non-emergency petition to adjudicate Allie, Amanda, and Lucia as children in need of aid (CINA) in August 2019.6 The superior court granted OCS custody of the children, and the agency placed them in foster care almost immediately. The court also appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL). The children's tribe (the Tribe) subsequently intervened in Allie and Amanda's cases.7
Kristin initially insisted that she did not need any rehabilitative services and refused to acknowledge her role in creating unsafe conditions for the children. However, she remained in contact with OCS and engaged, with varying degrees of success, with case plan requirements established by the agency. With assistance from OCS, Kristin made significant progress on her case plan over the life of this case, including the completion of parenting classes, a domestic violence assessment, substance abuse treatment, drug testing, and mental health treatment.
However, Kristin repeatedly clashed with service providers, leading to the termination of services in several instances. Service providers also regularly raised concerns that Kristin was not meaningfully incorporating the lessons from the services into her daily life and that she continued to deny responsibility for the risks her children faced.
OCS engaged multiple visitation supervisors for the first several years of the case. However, Kristin's inappropriate conduct during visits rendered supervision by family members unfeasible and caused two professional visitation supervisors to terminate their services. One of the children's therapists recommended ending contact between Kristin and all three children because visitation was detrimental to the children's welfare. Allie and Amanda both struggled to regulate their emotions. These challenges would intensify after seeing their mother, including tantrums lasting over 12 hours during which they were unable to “calm themselves down even when they were exhausted,” and would “throw things, throw mattresses off beds, hit the walls, throw things at the windows.” Even after they received therapy following visits, the two girls “were immensely dysregulated emotionally and behaviorally.” Based on the recommendation of the children's therapist, OCS did not reinstate visitation after a visitation supervisor terminated its services in the spring of 2022. As a result, Kristin's contact with all three children ceased in May 2022.
At Kristin's request, the superior court held a series of hearings to address visitation, which concluded in May 2023. By that time, Allie and Amanda had made significant progress and no longer needed individual therapy. The Tribe and GAL opposed restarting visitation. The court found clear and convincing evidence that it was not in Allie's or Amanda's best interests to have visitation with their mother. However, the court ordered OCS to move toward visitation by facilitating family therapy with Allie and Amanda through the services of the children's therapist. Because it heard no evidence that Lucia had similar negative reactions to visitation with her mother, the court ordered OCS to restart visitation with Lucia immediately.
Star page 3*3 OCS resumed efforts to provide visitation with Lucia, but Kristin continued to have conflicts with visitation supervisors. For example, just before the termination trial, a visitation supervisor decided to end services because Kristin “consistently violated boundaries.” Lucia struggled after visits with her mother, requiring therapy to manage subsequent dysregulation.
Despite efforts by OCS and the children's therapist, neither Allie nor Amanda returned to family therapy sessions with Kristin. The thought of seeing their mother “absolutely put both of them in a tailspin emotionally and behaviorally” and they refused all direct and indirect types of involvement with Kristin. Kristin also created obstacles to restarting family therapy by failing to follow recommendations for how to initiate contact indirectly, and she caused difficulties by attempting to pursue family therapy through a different provider without informing OCS. To prevent further traumatization to Allie and Amanda, the children's therapist ultimately decided not to move forward with family therapy sessions and OCS did not explore alternatives after that point.
C. Termination Proceedings
The superior court held a termination trial between June 2024 and February 2025. The witnesses included Kristin, Kristin's therapist, OCS caseworkers, the children's therapist, two ICWA experts, visitation supervisors, and other service providers.
In August 2025 the superior court issued an order terminating Kristin's parental rights. The court found clear and convincing evidence that the children were in need of aid due to abandonment,8 physical harm,9 mental injury,10 neglect,11 and substance abuse.12
Although the superior court acknowledged that Kristin had completed many elements of her case plan, it also found that she “had a number of conflicts with service providers,” especially visitation supervisors, “that led to disruptions in services” throughout the life of the case.
The superior court also found that Kristin “continues to engage in unstable relationships that often jeopardize her safety and that of her children.” It highlighted Kristin's relationships with men with extensive criminal history, substance abuse struggles, and patterns of domestic violence. Further, the court found that Kristin had “several animals in her home, including three dogs, at least one of which has demonstrated signs of aggression,” and that she did not appear to recognize that the presence of those animals and her plans to establish a dog training and boarding business “creates an additional obstacle to reunification” with Allie and Amanda.
The superior court found that Kristin had failed to sufficiently remedy OCS's legitimate concerns to allow for reunification. It emphasized that Allie and Amanda had been out of Kristin's care for nearly six years and that their desire not to have contact with their mother left “no question that reunification with [them] cannot occur in the foreseeable future without jeopardizing their emotional, physical, and mental well-being.” It also found that “[i]t would be incredibly traumatic to remove [Lucia] from the people she identifies as her nuclear family” after being with them since infancy. Citing the experts’ testimony, the court determined that, as required by ICWA, there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that returning Amanda and Allie to Kristin's care would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage.
Star page 4*4 Turning to OCS's efforts toward reunification, the superior court determined there was clear and convincing evidence that OCS had provided active efforts with regard to Allie and Amanda and reasonable efforts with regard to Lucia. While the court criticized OCS's decision to discontinue visitation with Lucia in 2022 as “unreasonable,” it nevertheless determined that “when reviewing [OCS]’s efforts in their entirety, this lapse does not defeat a finding that [OCS]’s efforts overall were reasonable.”
Finally, the superior court determined that it was against the children's best interests to return to their mother's care, and it terminated Kristin's parental rights.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the superior court's determination that OCS has engaged in active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family as a “mixed question of law and fact.”13 “Whether the superior court's factual findings ... satisfy ICWA is a question of law to which we apply our independent judgment.”14 We also address whether OCS engaged in reasonable efforts as a mixed question of law and fact, reviewing factual questions for clear error and legal questions with our independent judgment.15
We generally treat a superior court's determination of whether a parent has remedied the conduct or conditions that placed the child at substantial risk and led to removal as “a finding of fact that will only be reviewed for clear error.”16 We will only reverse a factual finding “if our review of the record leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that the superior court has made a mistake.”17
IV. DISCUSSION
Kristin raises three challenges to the termination of her parental rights. First, she argues that OCS failed to make active efforts to reunify her with Allie and Amanda. Second, she argues that OCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with Lucia. Third, Kristin argues that the superior court clearly erred by finding that she had not remedied the conduct and conditions that led to the children's removal. Observing no error, we affirm the rulings of the superior court.
A. OCS Made Active Efforts Toward Reunification With Allie and Amanda.
Under ICWA, OCS is required to make “active efforts ... to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.”18 “Active efforts” are defined as “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely.”19 Because Allie and Amanda are Indian children, OCS was required to meet the active efforts requirement under ICWA.
Kristin raises several arguments challenging the superior court's determination that OCS met this standard. First, she broadly asserts that OCS's efforts were not active because the agency did not do enough to facilitate court-ordered family therapy sessions with Allie and Amanda. Second, Kristin argues that active efforts were lacking because the children's therapist did not sufficiently involve Kristin's individual therapist in efforts toward family therapy. Third, Kristin points out that the Tribe submitted proposed findings with a conclusion that OCS failed to prove active efforts. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
Star page 5*5 Kristin's first argument focuses on the question of whether OCS sufficiently facilitated family therapy after the agency ceased visitation with Allie and Amanda in May 2022. After visitation ceased, Kristin moved for a visitation review hearing under AS 47.10.080(p).20 After the hearing, the superior court found clear and convincing evidence that visitation with Kristin was not in Allie's and Amanda's best interests at that time. Notably, Kristin does not challenge this finding. Instead, she asserts that OCS “effectively terminated [her] relationship and potential for reunification” with Allie and Amanda in May 2022 by failing to facilitate family therapy, which she characterizes as a necessary prerequisite to visitation, and by extension, reunification.
Contrary to Kristin's claims, OCS did make efforts to engage her in family therapy with Allie and Amanda. After the superior court ordered family therapy to resume in May 2023, the agency immediately coordinated with the children's therapist to arrange it. Unfortunately, and consistent with her past behavior, Kristin created obstacles to this process. For example, Kristin attempted to switch family therapists without telling OCS and did not meaningfully engage with the children's therapist's recommendation to use indirect forms of contact to “gently encourage” the girls to be more open to contact. Specifically, Kristin did not provide the children's therapist with letters, gifts, or photographs for the children, which the therapist had suggested to facilitate contact. Unbeknownst to the children's therapist, Kristin did attempt to send a few photographs through OCS, but the girls refused to look at them. Despite these obstacles, OCS's efforts resulted in regular individual therapy sessions for Allie and Amanda, which were designed to prepare them for family therapy sessions with Kristin.
But Allie's and Amanda's reactions to the attempts to restart family therapy reaffirmed the conclusion that visitation with Kristin was against their best interests. Both girls had “visceral” responses to the possibility of seeing their mother again, were steadfast in their desire not to participate in visitation, and experienced significant emotional regressions after previously having “graduated” from individual therapy. Meanwhile, in meetings with OCS, Kristin continued to resist the need for family therapy. She requested immediate visitation with Allie and Amanda, which demonstrated her failure to appreciate the negative mental health impacts this would have on the girls.
There is clear and convincing evidence that pressing forward with family therapy was against Allie's and Amanda's best interests.21 The combination of Kristin's persistent failure to appreciate the children's emotional needs and the children's visceral responses to the prospect of seeing their mother supports this conclusion.22 Under the circumstances, OCS had few options for facilitating these sessions without risking additional harm to Allie and Amanda.
Star page 6*6 Kristin's second argument is that OCS did not engage in active efforts because the children's therapist did not sufficiently involve Kristin's individual therapist in efforts toward restarting family therapy. But contrary to Kristin's claims, there was evidence that the children's therapist communicated appropriately with Kristin's individual therapist to improve Kristin's “parenting strategies” and establish “how best to support the kids at their developmental levels.” Although the children's therapist did not discuss the specifics of Kristin's or the children's individual therapy sessions, she explained that her communications with Kristin's therapist were consistent with best practices.
Kristin's third argument suggests that active efforts were lacking because the Tribe lodged proposed findings which criticized OCS for failing to make active efforts. The proposed findings submitted by the Tribe tend to conflict with an observation by the superior court that the Tribe supported termination of Kristin's parental rights. Setting aside any inconsistencies in the Tribe's position,23 the fact that the Tribe took a particular position in litigation has limited relevance because the question of whether OCS has provided active efforts is a legal question to which we apply our independent judgment.24 Under the circumstances presented, we are unpersuaded by Kristin's argument that the Tribe's proposed findings undermine a determination that OCS engaged in active efforts.
Looking to OCS's efforts overall,25 we agree with OCS that Kristin's argument “focuses narrowly on one area — family therapy — without acknowledging the bigger picture of OCS's efforts over this six-year case.” Kristin does not challenge the superior court's findings that OCS engaged in a wide range of efforts to facilitate reunification, including arranging services, treatment, and classes to address concerns about Kristin's substance abuse, mental health, and parenting abilities, even as Kristin burned bridges with various service providers. OCS also adapted its services and communication with Kristin to accommodate her patterns of behavior and potential psychiatric needs. And although a parent's unwillingness to engage with her case plan does not relieve OCS of its duty to provide active efforts,26 we observe that OCS's options were limited by Kristin's conduct, including self-sabotaging relationships with service providers, refusing to sign releases of information, and triangulating between providers.27
Considering OCS's efforts in their entirety, we conclude that none of Kristin's challenges preclude a determination of active efforts. First, OCS had good reason to believe that pursuing further family therapy with Kristin would have been against Allie's and Amanda's best interests. Second, obstacles such as the girls’ resistance and Kristin's failure to cooperate with service providers made it unlikely that additional communication between the children's therapist and Kristin's therapist would have changed the outcome. Finally, we are unpersuaded by Kristin's argument that the Tribe's proposed findings undercut the superior court's determination.
Star page 7*7 For these reasons, we affirm the superior court's determination that OCS engaged in active efforts to reunify Allie and Amanda with their mother.
B. OCS Made Reasonable Efforts Toward Reunification With Lucia.
Under Alaska law, OCS must “make timely, reasonable efforts to provide family support services to the child and to the parents ... that are designed ... to enable the safe return of the child to the family home, when appropriate, if the child is in an out-of-home placement.”28 OCS's “primary consideration is the child's best interests,” and the agency has discretion over “[w]hat efforts to pursue and what timing is reasonable.”29 As with active efforts, whether efforts are reasonable is determined by considering the agency's “reunification efforts in their entirety.”30 We have held that OCS's efforts “need not be perfect”31 and that they may be reasonable overall “even when its efforts were not reasonable during a particular period of time.”32
The superior court held that it was unreasonable for OCS not to reinstate visitation and family therapy with Lucia beginning in May 2022 because Lucia did not exhibit the same negative emotional reaction to Kristin as Allie and Amanda did. Nevertheless, reviewing OCS's efforts in their entirety, the court held that OCS had engaged in reasonable efforts toward reunification with Lucia. Kristin argues that the court's determination that the year-long pause in visitation was unreasonable should have precluded a determination that OCS's efforts were reasonable. We disagree and affirm the superior court's determination.
Kristin argues that OCS failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with Lucia by pausing contact between them at the same time it ended her contact with Allie and Amanda. Kristin asserts that OCS had “no evidence” Lucia had “the same types of alleged behavioral or emotional issues around family contact” that Allie and Amanda suffered. Kristin argues that because of the unreasonable pause in visitation, she missed a critical developmental period for bonding with Lucia, which weighed against her during the termination proceedings when compared to the close bond Lucia shared with her foster family.
Star page 8*8 We acknowledge that Kristin was deprived of an important developmental year with Lucia — between the ages of three and four — which likely contributed to Lucia's difficulty recognizing Kristin as a parent. Unlike with Allie and Amanda, in May 2022 there was no evidence that Lucia exhibited severe negative emotional reactions to visitation with her mother. We agree with the superior court's determination that OCS failed to offer the requisite “clear and convincing evidence” that pausing visitation served Lucia's best interests.33
However, when OCS's efforts are considered in their entirety, Kristin's challenge is unpersuasive. OCS's comprehensive efforts toward reunification, summarized in the section above, also satisfy the reasonable efforts standard, which is less stringent than the standard for active efforts.34 Throughout the nearly six-year period of the case, including the year-long pause in visitation, OCS maintained contact with Kristin and continued to help her access resources and remedial services to assist with reunification with Lucia. And after the court issued its order in May 2023, OCS worked to provide Kristin regular visitation with Lucia and family therapy through the children's therapist. Even when Lucia demonstrated signs of distress and emotional dysregulation after resuming visitation with Kristin, the agency worked with the children's therapist to mitigate disruption and allow visitation to continue in a healthy way.
For these reasons, we affirm the superior court's determination that OCS's efforts toward reunification with Lucia were reasonable.
C. The Record Supports The Superior Court's Finding That Kristin Failed Within A Reasonable Time To Remedy The Conduct And Conditions That Led To The Children's Removal.
To terminate parental rights, the superior court is required to find “by clear and convincing evidence” that the parent either “has not remedied the conduct or conditions in the home that place the child at substantial risk of harm” or has failed to do so “within a reasonable time ... so that returning the child to the parent would place the child at substantial risk of physical or mental injury.”35 “In making this determination, ‘the court may consider any fact relating to the best interest of the child.’ ”36
Kristin argues that she had demonstrated she was “a capable and safe parent” through the completion of most of her case plan requirements.37 Although the superior court recognized Kristin's “noteworthy” progress, the court ultimately found that Kristin both failed to fully remedy the conduct and conditions that placed her children in need of aid and failed to do so within a reasonable time. We affirm this decision because we are not left with a “definite and firm conviction that the superior court has made a mistake” on either ground.38
Star page 9*9 First, the record supports the superior court's conclusion that despite Kristin's efforts toward improvement, she had not internalized the lessons meant to be imparted by her case plan activities. We have previously recognized that formal compliance with a case plan does not necessarily mean that the parent has remedied her conduct; rather, a parent remedies conduct when she internalizes the lessons learned through meaningful engagement with the case plan to prevent repetition of the conduct that led to the children's removal.39 A parent's minimization or denial of the harmful nature of her conduct may indicate that she has not met this requirement.40
Kristin's repeated and continuing conflicts with service providers also demonstrated a lack of progress. Several providers explained that Kristin had not internalized the lessons from their services and that she would triangulate between providers to get the answer she wanted. Kristin also consistently blamed the children's removal on other circumstances and failed to take responsibility for how her actions had caused them harm. These sentiments and behaviors indicate that Kristin approached her case plan as a checklist rather than a meaningful opportunity for rehabilitation, and thus undermine her assertion that she remedied the conduct and conditions that placed her children in need of aid.
Further, Kristin does not challenge the superior court's finding that there are substantial concerns about the children's safety and well-being if they were returned to her. At the time of trial, Kristin was continuing to engage in volatile relationships that could pose a safety risk to the children. Kristin also described plans to start a dog training and boarding business and continued to keep animals in her home, including a dog that demonstrated aggressive behavior as recently as the summer of 2023. These circumstances indicate that Kristin still did not appreciate the trauma suffered by Allie and Amanda.
Finally, we also agree with the superior court's determination that Kristin failed to remedy the relevant conduct or conditions within a reasonable time. “Reasonable time” is defined as “a period of time that serves the best interests of the child, taking in account the affected child's age, emotional and developmental needs, and ability to form and maintain lasting attachments.”41 Whether a period of time is reasonable therefore varies with the context of each case and is “likely to be shorter for young children.”42
The children have spent well over half their lives outside of the home; at the time of removal, Allie was four, Amanda was two, and Lucia was only seven months old. The record reflects that they have bonded with their foster families, especially Lucia who has had the same placement since infancy. Allie and Amanda have refused to have any contact with Kristin for years and Lucia does not view Kristin as a parent. We observe no error in the superior court's determination that returning the children to Kristin after they have spent such a long and formative period outside her care places them “at substantial risk of mental injury.” We also note that our decision to affirm is consistent with our previous decisions upholding determinations that a parent had failed to act in a reasonable time in cases far shorter than the nearly six-year period of this case.43
Star page 10*10 For these reasons, we hold that the superior court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
V. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court's order terminating Kristin's parental rights.