In Re: L.r. And A.h. D.r. v. Dshs ( 2014 )

FILED
COURT OF APPEALS
DIVIS! OiN 1i
20! Li APR 24 WO: 47
ST"- Aiiim
Y
NY I\
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
In the Matter of the Welfare of: No. 44595 -6 -II
Consolidated with
L.R. and A.H., No. 44598 -1 - II
Minor Children. PART PUBLISHED OPINION
MAxA, J. — D.R. appeals the trial court' s order terminating her parental rights as to two of
her children, L.R. and A.H. 1 She argues that the trial court violated her due process rights by
proceeding with the first day of the termination trial even though she was not present. We hold
that although conducting a termination hearing without the parent present raises due process
concerns, the trial court did not violate D.R.' s due process rights under the facts of this case and
in light of the procedural safeguards the trial court implemented.
D. R. also argues that the Department of Social and Health Services ( Department) failed
to prove that continuation of the parent -child relationship diminished the children' s prospects for
integration into a stable and permanent home. In the unpublished portion of this opinion we
adopt verbatim the commissioner' s recitation of facts and ruling that former RCW
1 Our commissioner considered this appeal on an accelerated basis under RAP 18. 13A and
affirmed the trial court' s termination order. We granted DR' s motion to modify the
commissioner' s ruling in order to address DR' s due process argument.
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - I1
13. 34. 180( 1)( f) 2009) supported the trial court' s termination of D.R.' s parental rights.
(
Accordingly, we affirm.
PROCEDURAL FACTS
D. R. is the mother of L.R., born in 2010; and A. H., born in 2004. On July 26, 2011, the
children were found dependent, and on March 23, 2012, the Department filed petitions for
termination of the parent -child relationship as to both children. The termination trial originally
was scheduled for October 17, 2012. However, trial was continued to November 14, then to
January 16, 2013, and finally to January 24.
When the termination trial began at Remann Hall in Tacoma, D.R. was incarcerated at
the Washington Corrections Center for Women in Purdy. Because D.R. wanted to attend the
trial in person, she moved for an order of transport and a trial continuance so that she could be
transported from the corrections center to Remann Hall for the trial. D.R.' s attorney told the trial
court that it would take approximately two weeks to arrange for transportation.
The Department did not object to a short continuance of the termination trial, but stated
that it did not want a lengthy delay because the case already had been continued multiple times.
The Department also expressed uncertainty as to whether an inmate could be transported to
Remann Hall as opposed to the superior court in downtown Tacoma.
The trial court stated:
I' m disinclined to grant the This was set to this time with the idea
continuance.
that it would be tried. The fact that there' s now a problem with transport is
unfortunate, but really is not anything that, it sounds like, we could even
guarantee is going to be accommodated once we got your client transported from
wherever she is to the Pierce County Jail. We still have to have her either come
out here or we have to find somebody downtown, which is highly unlikely,
because we' ve got cases now that can' t get out. We' ve got a number of offender
cases that we' re asking them to preassign downtown, so it doesn' t sound like
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
there' s any good guarantee that we could arrange all the moving parts of this in
any quick fashion.
Report of Proceedings ( RP) ( Jan. 24, 2013) at 8.
The trial court took a recess to look at its trial schedule. It then denied the motions,
stating that there was no guarantee that D.R.' s transport request could be arranged in a timely
manner or even accommodated at all. The trial court continued:
T] he transport, the more I think about it, is, I think, a completely problematic
event, because even if we get her transported over here, I am absolutely
convinced they are not going to transport her out to Remann Hall, and I think it
highly unlikely that they would transport her even to one of the courtrooms for
trial since this is a civil matter and they have all the criminal matters deemed
priority. I think it very, very unlikely that there would be any arrangements made
to get her to a trial downtown. And even if we did it downtown, that means we' d
have to find a judge available because of their need to hear it in the County -City
Building, and that' s going to be problematic. So, this trial is doomed to float if
we don' t get it going now.
RP ( Jan. 24, 2013) at 13 - 14. D.R. does not assign error to the trial court' s denial of her motion
for a continuance or her motion for transport.
D.R.' s attorney next attempted to secure D.R.' s presence by telephone. The parties
previously had made arrangements with D.R-' s corrections officer to have D.R. available to
appear telephonically for trial. But when the State called the corrections officer, she said that she
was leaving work that day and gave the State the contact information for a different corrections
officer. When D.R.' s counsel attempted to contact that corrections officer, counsel was unable to
reach him.
D.R.' s attorney renewed his objection to commencing trial without D.R.' s presence in
person or telephonically. The trial court again denied the request and stated:
It would be preferable to have her available, preferably, in person, secondarily, on
the phone, but these are matters that have been known to the parties throughout
the proceeding. This case has been set for enough time to have arranged phone
3
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
contact, or if there was any hope of in-person presence, that would have been
arranged by now also. And as I indicated earlier, with no indication that those
things can be accomplished, if at all, and certainly not any time in the foreseeable
future, we are going to proceed.
RP ( Jan 24, 2013) at 16. That day, the trial court heard testimony from a Department social
worker who was subjected to cross -examination by D.R.' s attorney.
The trial continued on January 28 and February 7, and D.R. was able to appear
telephonically on both days. On January 28, D.R. moved for a mistrial, arguing that the trial
court violated her due process rights by denying her the ability to attend the first day of trial
telephonically or in person. She argued that her absence curtailed her attorney' s effectiveness in
cross -examining the social worker. The trial court denied the motion, stating that D.R. had
placed herself in the position of not being able to attend because of her criminal behavior. The
trial court further reasoned that D.R.' s request for transport was made on the first day of trial and
that it was uncertain whether she could be transported to Remann Hall or to any other facility
outside of the Department of Corrections.
After denying D.R.' s mistrial motion, the trial court permitted recesses following each
witness' s testimony to allow D.R. to speak privately with her attorney. On the last day of trial,
the court allowed D.R.' s attorney to recall the social worker to the stand to conduct another
cross -examination with D.R. present telephonically. After trial, the trial court entered orders
terminating D.R.' s parental rights as to the children.
ANALYSIS
DUE PROCESS RIGHT To ATTEND TERMINATION TRIAL
D.R. argues that the trial court violated her due process rights by proceeding with the first
day of the termination trial without her physical or telephonic presence. We disagree.
4
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
1. Standard of Review
D.R. does not assign error to the trial court' s denial of her motion to transport or its
denial of her motion for a continuance. Instead, she argues only that proceeding with the
termination trial in her absence violated her due process rights.
Division One of this court has suggested that the decision to proceed with a termination
trial in the absence of the parent rests in the trial court' s sound discretion. In re Interest of
Darrow, 32 Wn. App. 803, 808 -09, 649 P.2d 858 ( 1982); see also In re Dependency ofJ.W, 90
Wn. App. 417, 429, 953 P.2d 104 ( 1998) ( citing Darrow in context of dependency disposition
hearing). However, we review de novo alleged due process violations. Post v. City of Tacoma,
167 Wash. 2d 300, 308, 217 P.3d 1179 ( 2009). Accordingly; here we use the de novo standard of
review to address D.R.' s due process argument.
2. Due Process Balancing Analysis
Preservation of the family unit is a fundamental constitutional right protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Darrow, 32 Wash. App. at 806 ( citing
Qilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S. Ct. 549, 54 L Ed. 2d 511 ( 1978)). ` Because of the
constitutional interests at stake in a termination proceeding, parents are afforded greater due
process rights than in dependency proceedings or other proceedings to determine the custody or
placement of children." In re Welfare ofR. H., 176 Wash. App. 419, 425, 309 P.3d 620 ( 2013).
Due process in the termination context requires that parents have notice, an opportunity to be
heard and defend, and the right to be represented by counsel. In re Welfare ofS.E., 63 Wash. App.
244, 250, 820 P.2d 47 ( 1991).
The right to be heard " ordinarily includes the right to be present." In re Welfare of
Houts, 7 Wn. App. 476, 481, 499 P.2d 1276 ( 1972). However, there is no absolute right for an
5
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - I1
incarcerated parent to personally attend a termination proceeding or to appear telephonically. In
re Dependency of M.
S., 98 Wn. App. 91, 94 -96, 988 P.2d 488 ( 1999); see also Darrow, 32 Wn.
App. at 808 ( " The right to appear personally and defend is not guaranteed by due process so long
as the prisoner was afforded an opportunity to defend through counsel and by deposition or
similar evidentiary techniques. "). For instance, the parent' s right to be heard is not self -
executing and he or she must take reasonable and timely steps to exercise that right. RCW
13. 34. 090; M.S., 98 Wash. App. at 96. But under certain circumstances a parent' s due process
rights might require his or her attendance. See S.E., 63 Wash. App. at 248 -49 ( conducting due
process analysis but concluding that taking testimony of children outside the presence of their
parents did not violate the parents' due process rights)..
In determining whether a parent has received adequate due process, we must balance the
three factors set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S 319, 335, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18
1976). In re Dependency of C.R. B., 62 Wn. App. 608, 614 -15, 814 P.2d 1197 ( 1991). The
Mathews balancing test requires weighing: ( 1) the parent' s interests, ( 2) the risk of error created
by the procedures used, and (3) the State' s interests. C.R.B., 62 Wash. App. at 614 -15; see also
J.W., 90 Wash. App. at 429 ( Mathews factors used to determine adequacy of procedure in
dependency hearing). Here, a balancing of these factors supports the trial court' s decision to
proceed with the first day of the termination hearing in D.R.' s absence.
a. D.R.' s Interest
D.R. has a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of her children. In re
Dependency of K. S., 176 Wash. 2d 644, 652, 294 P.3d 695 ( 2013). " `[
D. C] ourts undertake a grave
responsibility when they deprive parents of the care, custody and control of their natural
children.' " S.E., 63 Wn. App. at 249 -50 ( alteration in original) ( quoting In re Welfare ofSego,
6
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
82 Wash. 2d 736, 738, 513 P.2d 831 ( 1973)). Therefore, "[ t]erminating parental rights is one of the
severest of state actions and implicates fundamental interests." In re Welfare ofJ.M, 130 Wn.
App. 912, 921, 125 P.3d 245 ( 2005).
The Department recognizes the strength of this interest and does not dispute its
importance here. However, the right to be present is not absolute and must be balanced against
the other two Matthews factors. M. 98 Wash. App. at 95. In addition, here the infringement on
S.,
D.R.' s interest involved her inability to attend only the first day of the three -day hearing.
b. Risk of Error
The second factor assesses whether the hearing had sufficient procedural safeguards to
insure that the parent had a full and fair opportunity to defend —i.e., to present evidence, rebut
opposing evidence, and present legal arguments. See J W., 90 Wash. App. at 428 -29; S.E., 63 Wn.
App. at 250 -51; Darrow, 32 Wash. App. at 808 -09. The ability to defend through counsel reduces
the risk of error. See J W., 90 Wash. App. at 428 -29.
The other divisions of this court have indicated that the risk of error is low when the
absent parent is represented by counsel and counsel is given a fair opportunity to defend the
parent. In J W., Division One of this court held that conducting a dependency disposition
hearing without the father present did not violate due process. 90 Wash. App. at 428 -29. The
court held that the father' s absence created little room for error where no facts were disputed and
the father' s counsel argued legal issues after fully discussing them beforehand with the father.
J.W., 90 Wash. App. at 428 -29. In Darrow, Division One held that the trial court did not violate
the father' s due process rights by denying his order of transport to be physically present at a
termination trial because the father " was afforded a full opportunity to defend in a fair hearing
while represented by counsel." 32 Wash. App. at 809.
7
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
In S.E., Division Three of this court held that the trial court did not violate the parents'
due process rights when it excluded them from a termination hearing at which their children
testified. 63 Wn. App. at 251. The court held that the risk of error created by the procedure was
low because "[ a] record of the proceeding was made and counsel and the guardian ad litem were
present, had an opportunity to cross -examine the children, did so, and had an opportunity to rebut
the children' s testimony by other evidence." S.E., 63 Wash. App. at 250.
As in these cases, there was little risk of error here. D.R. was represented by counsel
throughout the termination proceeding and had the opportunity to be heard and defend. D.R.' s
attorney was present on the first day of trial to listen to the social worker' s testimony and to
cross -examine her. On the remaining days of trial, D.R. appeared telephonically and was able to
privately consult with her attorney before cross -examining witnesses. On the final day of trial,
D.R., who was present telephonically, was given the opportunity to testify and to offer other
evidence. In addition, the trial court permitted D. R. to recall the social worker as a witness when
D.R. was present telephonically and to cover topics previously addressed. These were sufficient
procedural safeguards to insure that D.R. had a full and fair opportunity to defend despite her
absence.
Further, D.R. does not identify how her telephonic presence on the first day of trial would
have resulted in any different or additional evidence relevant to the factual issues resolved by the
trial court. D.R. also has not shown how she was prejudiced by her attorney' s inability to consult
with her on the first day of trial, especially where the social worker was recalled as a witness
8
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
2
once D.R. was present telephonically. Accordingly, the risk of error factor does not support a
finding of a due process violation.
c. State' s Interest
Regarding the final Mathews factor, the Department has a strong interest in protecting the
rights of the children, which includes a speedy resolution of the termination proceeding. M.
S.,
98 Wn. App. at 95. "[ T] he State and the child have a strong interest not only in establishing a
stable and permanent home for the child, but also in doing it as soon as possible." C.R. B., 62
Wn. App. at 615; see also RCW 13. 34. 020 ( " The right of a child to basic nurturing includes the
right to a safe, stable, and permanent home and a speedy resolution of any proceeding under this
chapter. ").
Here, the termination trial already had been continued three times from its originally
scheduled date of October 2012. Further, the trial court checked its trial schedule before denying
the continuance motion and apparently determined that granting another continuance would
cause scheduling problems. The court stated that " this trial is doomed to float if we don' t get it
going now." RP ( Jan. 24, 2013) at 14. Finally, there was no guarantee that D.R. could have
been transported to the hearing or even been available by telephone if the trial court allowed a
continuance. As such, DSHS had a strong interest in proceeding with the hearing on January 24,
2013, rather than allowing any further delay.
d. Balancing of Factors
The balancing of the Matthews factors demonstrates that D.R.' s absence from the first
day of the termination hearing did not violate her due process rights. Although D.R. had a strong
2 Although lack of prejudice often is part of a harmless error analysis, here it relates to the risk of
error prong of the Mathews test.
9
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
interest in attending, her right to be present is not absolute and she only missed one day of a
three -day hearing. And the State also had a compelling interest in not delaying the proceedings
any further. Most significantly, D.R. was represented by counsel and the procedural safeguards
the trial court put into place served to reduce or eliminate any risk of error and any prejudice in
proceeding without her. We hold that the balancing process does not support a finding that
D.R.' s due process rights were violated.
We are aware that D.R. was prevented from attending the first day of the hearing through
no fault of her own. We also note the apparent lack of coordination in providing transport for a
parent in custody who is facing a termination proceeding. It is troubling that the arrangements
that had been made for D.R. to attend via telephone fell through because the corrections officer
serving as the contact could not be reached. This lack of cooperation and effort could lead to a
due process violation when interests as fundamental as those involved in termination proceedings
are at stake. Under these circumstances, the better practice may have been to continue the trial to
allow the parent to attend telephonically. However, because the trial court' s procedures here
minimized the risk of error to the extent described above, we find no due process violation and
defer to the trial court' s discretion regarding whether a continuance was warranted.
We hold that the trial court did not violate D.R.' s due process rights by conducting the
first day of the termination hearing without her present.
We consider D. R.' s remaining argument in the unpublished portion of this opinion. We
affirm the trial court' s termination of D. R.' s parental rights.
A majority of the panel having determined that only the foregoing portion of this opinion
will be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports and that the remainder shall be filed for
public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered.
10
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we adopt verbatim the commissioner' s ruling
addressing and rejecting D.R.' s remaining argument that there was not substantial evidence to
support the trial court' s finding that former RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f) supported termination of
D. R.' s rights.
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE UNDER FORMER RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f)
1. Additional Facts
We adopt verbatim the following facts from the commissioner' s ruling:
On May 11, 2011, law enforcement placed L.R. and A.H. in protective custody
after D. R. was arrested for a probation violation. Prior to D.R.' s arrest, the Department
received a referral from law enforcement in March 2011 that D.R. and L.R.' s father were
involved in a domestic violence dispute. The officer was concerned for L.R.' s safety
because D. R. holding
was him when the In addition, the Department
assault occurred.
received a referral in early May 2011 that D.R. was neglecting to seek medical attention
for L.R., who had a sore on his groin. On May 16, 2011, the Department filed
dependency petitions as to L.R. and A.H. because of concerns regarding D.R.' s ability to
care for them due to her drug and alcohol use and mental health issues. A.H. was placed
with his paternal grandmother, D.H., and J.R. was placed with his paternal grandparents,
S. M. and W.M., Jr.
D.R. agreed to the dependencies of L.R. and A.H. on July 26, 2011, and the
juvenile court ordered continued out - - ome placement for the children with their
of h
grandparents. As for services, the juvenile court required D.R. to: ( 1) participate in a
drug and alcohol evaluation, an anger - management evaluation, and a parenting
evaluation; ( 2) provide random urinalysis samples; ( 3) maintain suitable and appropriate
housing for herself and the children; ( 4) keep the Department and guardian ad litem .. .
updated on her progress in services; and ( 5) resolve any and all outstanding criminal
issues and maintain law abiding behavior. The juvenile court permitted D.R. to have
supervised visitation with the children twice per week.
the dependency, D. R. to engage in criminal On
During continued activity.
December 2, 2011, she pleaded guilty to committing identity theft in October 2011, and
the court sentenced her to an additional 12 months of On February
community custody.
9, 2012, D. R. was arrested for another probation violation and was incarcerated for 30
days. On May 18, 2012, D.R. was arrested for committing additional acts of identity
theft in February and May 2012. In August 2012, she pleaded guilty to eight counts of
identity theft, and the court sentenced her to a 50 -month drug offender sentencing
alternative .... The earliest possible date D. R. could be released from incarceration was
April 2013, if she was found eligible for work release. Although D.R. initially attended
parent -child visits on a regular basis, she stopped visiting the children altogether in
January 2012 because she had warrants out for her arrest and did not want to be arrested
11
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
in front of them. As of the termination trial, D.R. remained incarcerated and still had not
seen the children since January 2012.
In March 2012, the juvenile court changed L.R.' s and A.H.' s primary permanent
plan to adoption, and home studies for adoption were ordered for both placements. By
November 19, 2012, A.H.' s home study had been completed and approved. L.R.' s was
still in the process of being completed.
On the first day of the termination trial] the juvenile court heard testimony from
the Department social worker, Nina Jackson, and D.R.' s attorney was given the
opportunity to cross -examine her.
Jackson testified about the numerous services she offered to D. R. prior to her
incarceration and in any of the services. In addition, Jackson
D. R.' s failure to engage
noted that [ L.R.] and A.H. had remained in the same placements with their grandparents
sinceMay 2011. She believed that L.R. was thriving in his placement as he had become
more verbal since first coming into the Department' s care and was hitting milestones.
Jackson also believed that A.H. was doing well in his placement and that she was
meeting all of his needs. She stated that A.H. was in third grade and, although he had
been behind for a little while,he was now reading at his grade level. Jackson further
stated the grandparents were willing to adopt the children if they became legally free.
Jackson did not recommend returning the children to D.R.' s care in the near
future, as she had not seen the children since January 2012 and had no established
relationship with them. She stated that A.H. became very upset when he thought about
D. R. and questioned why D. R. would want to see him and [ L.R.] when she did not
previously take the opportunity to do so. Jackson also stated that [ L.R.] had no bond with
D. R. since he had been removed from her care when he was only five months old. She
did not know what affect visitation would have on the children, especially because [ L.R.]
did not know D.R., and she believed that [ A. H.] would be confused by the situation.
The children' s [ guardian ad litem] testified that she had seen L.R. and A.H. a
number of times during the dependency. She stated that L.R. was bonded with his
grandparents and was doing very well in their care. She also stated that A.H. was very
bonded with his grandmother and did not want to visit with D.R. if she was incarcerated.
She agreed with the court- ordered plan for adoption since D.R. had not corrected her
parenting deficiencies or addressed the concerns that brought the children into care. She
did not recommend returning the children to D.R.' s care in the near future, stating that
D.R. would need at least six to nine months after being released from incarceration to
show that she could parent the children, complete the recommended services, and have
adequate housing. She stated that this timeframe would delay permanence for the
children and that attempts for reunification with D.R. might negatively impact the
children. if D.R. was not successful in correcting her parenting deficiencies. She believed
that if the parent -child relationship continued and visitation resumed, it would disrupt the
children' s bond and connection with the grandparents. She further stated that if the
children were re- introduced to D.R. and D.R. did not follow through with correcting her
parenting deficiencies, the children would be hurt.
12
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - 1I
Following the testimony, the juvenile court found that the Department proved the
elements in former RCW 13. 34[.] 180( 1)( a) through ( f) by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence. It found that there was little likelihood conditions would be remedied such that
the children could return to D.R.' s care in the near future, as it was unclear when D.R.
would be released from incarceration and she still needed to engage in numerous court
ordered services and demonstrate compliance, progress, and stability outside of the
Department of Corrections]. As to former RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f), the juvenile court
found that the children were bonded with their grandparents, were integrated in their
respective homes, and had stability. It also found that reintroducing the children to D.R.,
whom they had not seen in over a year, " would be confusing to the child[ ren] and affect
thebonding and child[ ren have]."
disrupt the stability the L.R. Clerk' s Papers [ at 78].
On March 5, 2013 the juvenile court entered orders terminating D.R.' s parental rights as
to the children.
Ruling Affirming Orders Terminating Parental Rights at 2 -8, In re Welfare ofL.R., No.
44595 -6 -II, at 2 -8 ( Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2013) ( some alterations in original)
footnotes omitted).
2. RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f) Analysis
We adopt verbatim the commissioner' s analysis of the RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f) issue:
D.R. argues that the Department failed to prove that continuation of the
parent -child relationship diminished the children' s prospects for integration into a
stable and permanent home as required by former RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f). She
asserts that the evidence showed only a " ` subtle' " possibility that the children' s
relationship with the grandparents would change. Br. of Appellant at 16.
The juvenile court may order termination of a parent' s rights as to his or her child
if the Department establishes the six elements in former RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( a) through (f)
by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The Department also must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that termination of parental rights is in the child' s best
interests. RCW 13. 34. 190( 1)( b). Clear, cogent and convincing evidence exists when the
ultimate fact in issue is shown to be " highly probable." In re the Welfare of Sego, 82
Wash. 2d 736, 739, 513 P.2d 831 ( 1973) [( internal quotation marks omitted)] ( quoting
Supove v. Densmoor, 225 Or. 365, 372, 358 P.2d 510 ( 1961)).
Because the trial court has the advantage of observing the witnesses, deference to
the is particularly important in termination proceedings.
court In re the Welfare of
Aschauer, 93 Wash. 2d 689, 695, 611 P.2d 1245 ( 1980); In re Dependency of KR., 128
Wash. 2d 129, 144, 904 P.2d 1132 ( 1995). This court limits its analysis to whether
substantial evidence supports the juvenile court' s findings. Sego, 82 Wash. 2d at 739.
Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair -
minded rational person of
the truth of the declared premise. Bering v. SHARE, 106 Wash. 2d 212, 220, 721 P.2d 918
13
No. 44595 -6 -I1, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - 11
1986), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050 ( 1987). This court does not review credibility
determinations or weigh the evidence. Sego, 82 Wash. 2d at 739 -40.
The Department can prove former RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f) in one of two ways: ( 1)
that prospects for a permanent home exist, but the parent -child relationship prevents the
child from obtaining that that the parent -child relationship has a
placement; or ( 2)
damaging and destabilizing effect on the child that would negatively impact the child' s
integration into any permanent and stable home. In re the Welfare of R. H., [176 Wn.
App. 419, 428, 309 P.3d 620 ( 2013)]; In re Dependency of A. C., 123 Wash. App. 244, 250,
98 P.3d 89 ( 2004); In re Dependency of K.D.S., 176 Wash. 2d 644, 659, 294 P.3d 695
2013). Under the first method, "[ RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f)] is mainly concerned with the
continued effect of the legal relationship between parent and child, as an obstacle to
adoption it is especially a concern where children have potential adoption resources."
R. H., [176 Wn. App. at 428 ( internal quotation marks omitted)] ( quoting A. C. , 123 Wn.
App. at 250 ( emphasis in original)). Under the second method, the issue is whether
continuation of the harmful parent -child relationship " diminishes the likelihood [ the
child] will be emotionally and psychologically prepared to integrate into a stable and
permanent home should one become available." R. H., [176 Wn. App. at 428 ( internal
quotation marks omitted)] ( quoting K.D.S., 176 Wash. 2d at 659).
Substantial evidence supports the trial court' s finding that continuation of the
parent -child relationship clearly diminished the children' s prospects for early integration
into a stable and permanent home, as required under former RCW 13. 34. 180( 1)( f). Here,
both the social worker and the [ guardian ad litem] testified that the children were doing
well in their respective placements and were bonded to their grandparents. Jackson
testified that the grandparents were willing to adopt the children if they became legally
free. Given the children' s prospects for a permanent home, continuing the parent -child
relationship any longer clearly prevented them from obtaining a permanent and stable
placement with their grandparents. Further, the evidence demonstrated that
reestablishing a relationship with D.R. could negatively impact the children since they
had not seen her in over a year. The [ guardian ad litem] opined that reintroducing D.R.
into the children' s lives would affect their bond and stability with the grandparents,
especially if D.R. did not follow through with services.
Ruling Affirming Orders Terminating Parental Rights at 2 -8, In re Welfare of L.R.,
No. 44595 -6 -II, at 11 - 13 ( some alterations in original).
14
No. 44595 -6 -II, consolidated with No. 44598 -1 - II
Based on the commissioner' s analysis, we affirm the trial court' s termination of D.R.' s
parental rights.
We concur:
15