── Petra J. v. State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children's Services ──
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Date: April 22, 2026
Category: General
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER.
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
[email protected].
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
PETRA J., )
) Supreme Court No. S-19563
Appellant, )
) Superior Court No. 1KE-19-00019 CN
v. )
) OPINION
STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT )
OF FAMILY & COMMUNITY ) No. 7808 – April 22, 2026
SERVICES, OFFICE OF )
CHILDREN’S SERVICES, )
)
Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First
Judicial District, Ketchikan, Daniel Doty, Judge.
Appearances: Amanda J. Harber, 49th State Law, LLC,
Soldotna, for Appellant. Jennifer Teitell, Assistant Attorney
General, Anchorage, and Stephen J. Cox, Attorney General,
Juneau, for Appellee. Rachel Espejo, Central Council of
Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Juneau, for
Intervening Tribe. Margaret McWilliams, Assistant Public
Advocate, and James E. Stinson, Public Advocate,
Anchorage, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Before: Borghesan, Henderson, Pate, and Oravec, Justices.
[Carney, Chief Justice, not participating.]
BORGHESAN, Justice.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requires the Office of Children’s
Services (OCS) to follow a set of preferences when placing an Indian child in foster
care. The top preference is a member of the child’s extended family; the next preference
is a foster home approved by the child’s tribe; the third preference is an Indian foster
home; and the fourth preference is an institution approved by the child’s tribe. If a
higher-preference foster home exists but is not “suitable,” then OCS may place the child
in a lower-preference placement.
In this case OCS removed a child from her parents and placed her with a
relative. But after growing concerned about the child’s health, OCS moved the child to
another foster home, which was a lower-preference placement. The relative challenged
the placement change. After an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found that the
relative failed to get treatment for the child’s significant dental decay and failed to meet
the child’s dietary needs, causing her growth to flatline. Based on these findings, the
court ruled that the relative was not a suitable foster parent. Therefore, it upheld OCS’s
decision to place the child in a lower-preference foster home.
We affirm the superior court’s order. We see no clear error in the superior
court’s factual findings. And because a foster parent who fails to meet a child’s basic
dental and nutritional needs is not a suitable foster parent, the superior court did not err
in upholding OCS’s decision to move the child to a lower-preference foster parent who
could appropriately meet her needs.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Facts
Ax̱ adée1 and her sister Jalissa were removed from their parents in 2019
when Ax̱ adée was about six months old and Jalissa was nearly three years old. Both
1
We use pseudonyms and refer to the children’s tribe generically as “the
Tribe” to protect the family’s privacy.
-2- 7808
are Indian children as defined by ICWA.2 After a previous foster home did not work
out, OCS sought to place the children with their mother’s cousin, Petr