Alaska Supreme Court reverses parental-rights termination over insufficient ICWA expert testimony

The Alaska Supreme Court reversed a superior court order terminating the parental rights of a mother identified as Viva G., ruling that the State's cultural expert witness failed to meet the Indian Child Welfare Act's requirement for testimony grounded in the specific social and cultural standards of the child's tribe. The court's opinion, issued July 2, 2026, returns the case to the superior court for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

The reversal leaves the placement and permanency of Raleigh, the child at the center of the case, unresolved. Raleigh was born in March 2023, tested positive for addictive substances at birth, and required neonatal intensive care unit treatment for withdrawal. He has spent nearly his entire life in foster care, including in an ICWA-compliant foster home with a member of his tribe. The superior court held a one-day termination trial in April 2025 and found beyond a reasonable doubt that returning Raleigh to his mother would likely result in serious harm. The Alaska Supreme Court found that finding could not stand without legally sufficient cultural expert testimony.

The cultural expert, described in the opinion as an elder in his tribe who was engaged in tribal matters, had a background in law enforcement, lived in the village, and had previously testified in ICWA cases. He testified by phone. He told the court he "believe[d] there was some . . . substance abuse going on" but offered no further detail. His closing position was that "[W]e as the Tribal Council feel that the parents are not cooperating with the rehabilitation . . . [and] we have concerns to the child's safety."

The opinion, authored by Justice Oravec, held that the testimony did not explain what tribal child-rearing standards apply, how Viva's specific conduct measured against those standards, or why the tribe's cultural framework supported termination rather than another remedy. Without that grounding, the superior court lacked the cultural context ICWA's expert-witness requirement is designed to provide. That context is intended to ensure child-welfare decisions are not based on dominant-culture assumptions rather than the prevailing social and cultural standards of the child's tribe. ICWA, enacted by Congress in 1978 in response to the disproportionate removal of Native children into non-Native homes, requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by qualified expert testimony, that continued parental custody will likely cause serious emotional or physical harm to the child. The majority framed the ruling as consistent with the court's 2022 decision in Cissy A. v. State, which similarly rejected generic cultural testimony that failed to connect tribal standards to the specific parental conduct at issue.

The guardian ad litem argued that a tribal leader's statement that the parents had failed tribal expectations should be enough to satisfy ICWA's expert requirement. The majority rejected that view, holding that a tribal endorsement of termination is not a substitute for the reasoned cultural analysis the statute demands.