344 P.3d 1186
Wash.2015Background
- In 2010 Washington enacted RCW 13.36, creating a guardianship-for-foster-care pathway that dismisses dependency and appoints a guardian.
- DSHS petitioned to appoint guardians for A.W. (born 2002) and M.W. (born 2000); their mother T.P. contested.
- In 2009, W.W., T.P.’s 13-year-old son, sexually abused A.W. and M.W. and another sibling, leading to removal from T.P.’s home on September 17, 2009.
- A dependency petition was filed September 21, 2009; T.P. agreed to dependency in December 2009 and services were ordered.
- In March 2010, the court approved transitioning the children to T.P.’s home contingent on compliance with services and a DSHS safety plan limiting unsupervised access by a significant other (S.B.).
- In December 2010, the transition ended after a home visit found S.B. alone with the children; a 2011 psychological evaluation of T.P. diagnosed polysubstance dependence and other issues; in 2012 T.P. faced methamphetamine charges; a guardianship hearing occurred in March 2013 resulting in guardianship being established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preponderance of the evidence satisfies due process for guardianship | TP argues preponderance is unconstitutional given due process | State argues preponderance is sufficient given guardianship’s temporary nature | Preponderance satisfies due process |
| Whether substantial evidence supports guardianship for A.W. and M.W. | TP contends evidence does not prove best interests and remediation unlikely | DSHS argues evidence shows guardianship is in best interests and little likelihood of return | Yes; substantial evidence supports guardianship and best-interests finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of Sego, 455 U.S. 745 ((1982)) (termination standard; due process considerations for parental rights)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 ((1982)) (due process in child-removal decisions; standard of proof matters)
- In re Dependency of KS.C., 137 Wn.2d 918 ((1999)) (preponderance sufficient under old statute; context matters)
- F.S., 81 Wn. App. 264 ((1996)) (guardianship as temporary; balance of protections under old statute)
- In re Dependency of A.V.D., 62 Wn. App. 562 ((1991)) (guardianships as temporary; opportunity to seek termination)
- Parrott & Co. v. Benson, 114 Wash. 117 ((1921)) (historical standard regarding Constitutionality review)
- State v. Ortiz, 119 Wn.2d 294 ((1992)) (Washington constitutional due process baseline)