Department of Social & Health Services v. Paulos
166 Wash. App. 504
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- M.R. (born 2007) was placed with paternal grandparents after dependency was initiated due to mother’s drug use and alleged instability.
- The Department filed an amended dependency petition alleging neglect and imminent risk; placement with relatives was pursued.
- An agreed order of dependency placed M.R. with the paternal grandparents; a review hearing was scheduled for early 2011.
- Before the March 2011 review, the Department proposed a return-to-mother plan with concurrent adoptive plan; VGAL recommended remaining with the grandparents.
- The trial court removed M.R. from the grandparents’ home at the March 10, 2011 hearing, citing concerns about the grandparents’ immigration status, despite contrary recommendations.
- The court’s removal order was reversed on appeal, and the case was remanded for continuance of the grandparent placement pending proper showings of change in circumstance and adherence to best-interests factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal from the grandparent placement was proper on basis of immigration status | Paulos argues removal relied on untenable, immigration-based grounds | Department/VGAL contend immigration status is a permissible factor but not sole determinant | No; removal was based on untenable grounds and contrary to law |
| Is immigration status a reliable sole predictor of risk in placement decisions | Undocumented status should not drive removal decisions | Immigration status may inform risk assessment | No; immigration status alone is not a reliable predictor and cannot drive sole removal decision |
| Was there a change in circumstances justifying a placement change | No substantial change in circumstances warranted relocation | Circumstances could support revisiting placement | No change in circumstances proven to justify removal |
| Did the court properly weigh best-interests factors and continuity of attachments | Best interests favored continued grandparent placement | Best interests could shift with new plan | Court erred by not adequately weighing attachment and stability factors; removal inconsistent with best interests |
| What standard governs placement decisions in dependency, and was abuse of discretion shown | Discretion exercised unlawfully against stable placement | Discretion to consider factors like immigration status exists | Abuse of discretion; decision not within acceptable range given facts; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1 (1993) (best interests and stability factors; consider attachments and potential harm)
- Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689 (1980) (avoid multiple changes in custody when possible; stability focus)
- R.L., 123 Wn. App. 215 (2004) (stability and permanence; change in circumstances required for modification)
- A.C., 74 Wn. App. 271 (1994) (abuse of discretion standard in dependency placement decisions)
- T.L.G., 139 Wn. App. 1 (2007) (abuse of discretion; untenable grounds and range of acceptable choices)