Dayanara Castillo v. State Of Washington Dshs
49063-3
Wash. Ct. App.Aug 29, 2017Background
- Castillo was found to have founded child neglect by the Department, with notice delivered Sept. 9–10, 2013.
- Castillo timely requested agency review within 30 days, but the Department denied review as untimely.
- Castillo sought an ALJ hearing after a Department dismissal; the ALJ dismissed for lack of rights due to untimeliness.
- The BOA found Castillo’s petition for review to the BOA untimely and not saved by a good-cause exception, and dismissed the petition.
- Castillo petitioned for judicial review; the superior court affirmed the BOA, and Castillo appeals.
- The court holds: (i) BOA’s untimeliness and lack of good cause are supported by substantial evidence; (ii) record insufficient to determine future employment ability; (iii) procedural due process claim fails.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Castillo's petition to the BOA timely or properly saved by good cause? | Castillo argues timely review and/or good cause excused. | BOA/Department contends petition untimely with no good cause. | Untimely with no good cause; affirmed dismissal. |
| Did the Department have authority to review an untimely petition? | Castillo contends Department could review for errors or at any time. | Department maintained lack of authority for untimely review under RCW 26.44.125. | Department had no authority to review untimely petition; affirmed. |
| Did Castillo’s procedural due process rights require a hearing on the founded finding? | Due process requires opportunity to challenge stigma and future employment effects. | No protected liberty interest without employment in chosen field affected. | No protected liberty interest proven; due process claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantu v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 168 Wn. App. 14 (2012) (substantial evidence standard for agency findings)
- Ritter v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Adams County Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 Wn.2d 503 (1981) (foreclosure of employment opportunities as a liberty interest requires direct impact)
- Giles v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 90 Wn.2d 457 (1978) (liberty interest infringed by stigma when affecting employment opportunities)
- Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wn.2d 208 (2006) (procedural due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard when protected interests implicated)
- Goldsmith v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 169 Wn. App. 573 (2012) (deference to agency interpretation of its regulations; review often de novo for statutory issues)
- Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (2014) (statutory interpretation to determine legislature’s intent)