Dependency Of D.f.-s. Lo Saelee v. Dshs
76150-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Father L.S. is biological parent of D.F.-S. (b. 2004); child was subject to multiple dependencies (2005, 2007, 2013) after parental drug use, neglect, and abandonment.
- 2013 dependency order required L.S. to obtain drug/alcohol and psychological evaluations, submit to random UAs, and follow recommended treatment; L.S. largely failed to engage in services and provided invalid contact information.
- L.S. was arrested in 2015 and incarcerated in DOC facilities through the termination trial; DOC performed a chemical dependency assessment recommending level 3.5 residential treatment (not available at his facility).
- A psychological evaluation (Dr. Tutty) was completed in Aug. 2016 diagnosing substance use disorders and paranoid personality disorder; Dr. Tutty opined L.S. was high risk to endanger the child and unlikely amenable to treatment absent intensive long-term sobriety and therapy.
- Caseworkers, CASA, and therapist testified the child was adoptable, did not wish contact with L.S., and termination was in the child’s best interests. Superior court terminated parental rights; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (L.S.) | Defendant's Argument (State/DSHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of psychological evaluation and CBT | Psychological eval and CBT were provided too late (evaluation ~3 years after order; CBT unavailable before trial), so required services were not offered | Delay was mainly caused by L.S.’s failure to engage; once he became available DOC/DSHS promptly arranged evaluation; CBT was not available in facility and would have been futile given circumstances | Court upheld that evaluation was timely and CBT offer (or lack thereof) did not defeat RCW 13.34.180(d); futility supports sufficiency of services offered |
| Integrated mental health and chemical-dependency treatment | DSHS failed to provide concurrent/integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders as required (citing S.J.) | Dispositional order did not require sequential treatment; L.S. did not engage in services; S.J. distinguishable because parent there participated but was denied concurrent care | Court rejected S.J. analogy and found integrated-treatment claim inapplicable; services offered were adequate given facts |
| Services and transfers during incarceration | DSHS failed to timely request transfer to facility offering recommended level 3.5/3.3 treatment and failed to secure necessary in-custody services | DSHS lacks authority to place inmates; obligation is to provide reasonably available services at facility and it did so (arranged assessments, attempted referrals) | Court held DSHS met its duty under RCW 13.34.136: it pursued services reasonably available at the confinement facility; transfer was beyond DSHS control |
| Parent-child attachment (bonding) services | DSHS did not implement bonding/attachment therapy recommended by Dr. Tutty | Dr. Tutty recommended bonding services only if reunification is pursued post-release; child did not want contact and bonding therapy would have been futile/time-inappropriate | Court found offering bonding services before reunification would have been futile and DSHS was not required to provide them pretrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest; burden and standards for termination)
- In re Dependency of S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (concurrent mental-health and substance-abuse treatment may be required where lack of one prevents progress in the other)
- In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (delay in providing psychological services can undermine termination if services would have aided parent)
- In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (Wash. 2016) (futility of bonding services where child unwilling to participate; parental mental illness can preclude meaningful reunification)
- In re Ferguson, 32 Wn. App. 865 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982) (court may find services unnecessary when they would be futile)
- In re Dependency of D.L.B., 186 Wn.2d 103 (Wash. 2016) (Department's duty is to provide services reasonably available at the facility where parent is confined)
- In re Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689 (Wash. 1980) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence under clear, cogent, and convincing standard)