Department of Social & Health Services v. Luak, 271 P.3d 234

After a lengthy trial, the trial court terminated Luak’s parental rights based on six statutory factors; it found all factors proven by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Luak challenges two statutory factors: that services were expressly and understandably offered to correct parental deficiencies, and that there was little likelihood those deficiencies could be remedied in the foreseeable future.
Luak had a long history of protective custody removals, parenting classes, and prescribed cognitive behavior therapy, which she did not complete.
The State presented evidence that Luak informed repeatedly about the need for cognitive behavior therapy and was given multiple referrals, letters, and opportunities to obtain services.
The trial court excluded the children from testifying over objections that it would traumatize them; the GAL supported termination, while Luak did not request counsel for the children.
Luak, for the first time on appeal, argued that the children had a constitutional right to counsel; the court held RCW 13.34.100(6) is constitutionally adequate and that appointment of counsel is not universal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had substantial evidence for the fourteenth- and e factors on services and remedy	Luak	State	Support upheld; substantial evidence supports findings
Whether children have a constitutional right to counsel in dependency/termination	Luak	State	Right to counsel is not universal; RCW 13.34.100(6) constitutionally adequate

In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (2010) (six-factor standard and substantial-evidence review)
Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (no blanket right to counsel; Mathews framework applied case-by-case)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor test for due process in welfare proceedings)
In re Welfare of Myricks, 85 Wn.2d 252 (1975) (parental-rights liberty interest; right to counsel in termination cases)
In re Welfare of Luscier, 84 Wn.2d 135 (1974) (fundamental parental rights protected; due process concerns)
Braam v. State, 150 Wn.2d 689 (2003) (foster child safety; rights of children in custody decisions)
State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54 (1986) (Gunwall framework for constitutional analysis)
Bellevue School Dist. v. E.S., 171 Wn.2d 695 (2010) (Mathews framework application in due process contexts)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state intervention; limits on duty to protect absent abuse)