not include those UAs that did not produce a sample. Either , way, the record demonstrates that Casey's participation in the random UA testing program was minimal. 17 . See G.C., 67 P.3d at 651. 18 . AS 47.10.088(a)(2); Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 290 P.3d 421, 431 (Alaska 2012). 19 . AS 47.10.088(b). 20 . Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896, 903 (Alaska 2003). 21 . We also note that the treatment assessor's initial assessment of Casey was based exclusively on information which Casey provided. Thus, to the extent the provider erroneously concluded that Casey did not need treatment, this error was presumably caused Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756, 765 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>). 32 . Casey notes that OCS "only obtained one
holding that the juvenile court could have concluded that dhr had made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the child holding that dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing holding the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection n when after release from prison the defendant was advised of visitation but only visited with his children twice and made no further efforts to be involved with them and a case worker testified that all reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the parents holding that even under the higher active efforts burden required in indian child welfare act icwa cases the fact that ocs failed to make efforts during three of the 26 months it was involved in the case was not determinative holding that ocs made active efforts as required by icwa even where ocss efforts temporarily declined when father was incarcerated