421 P.3d 482
Wash. Ct. App.2018Background
- Mother Stephanie Franks has a long history of methamphetamine and cannabis addiction; children were removed after positive drug tests at births and repeated failures to complete treatment.
- Dependency was entered in January 2013 for three children (later narrowed to two here: V.F.-C. and M.-A.F.-S.); court-ordered services included substance-abuse treatment, random UAs, parenting assessment, and mental-health counseling.
- Franks intermittently engaged in treatment (inpatient and outpatient) but repeatedly relapsed, stopped participating in services, missed visits, and at times ceased contact with the Department and the children.
- The Department filed to terminate parental rights in December 2014; after continuances to allow service participation, a two-week termination trial occurred in September 2016.
- Trial evidence included social-worker reports, therapist testimony about harm from inconsistent parental contact, a parenting/psychosocial evaluation that stressed sobriety as essential, and testimony that termination would increase adoptability and permanency options.
- The trial court found Franks currently unfit, that necessary services were offered or futile to provide, that there was little likelihood of remedy in the near future, and that continuation of the parent-child relationship diminished prospects for a stable, permanent home; termination was ordered for two children and affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are RCW 13.34.180 and .190 facially unconstitutional under strict scrutiny? | Franks: statutes are not narrowly tailored; termination may occur without imminent adoptive placement and thus is not least restrictive. | State: statutes protect compelling interest (child welfare) and require proof that continuation risks harm and impedes permanency; thus they are narrowly tailored. | Statutes are constitutional; prior Washington precedent and statutory elements satisfy strict scrutiny. |
| Are RCW 13.34.180 and .190 unconstitutional as applied? | Franks: terminating rights without imminent adoption will harm children and eliminate possibility of reunification. | State: record shows continuation was harmful and children had prospects for adoption; termination increased permanency options. | As applied challenge rejected; record showed continuation of relationship was harmful and termination appropriate. |
| Did the Department provide all necessary and reasonably available services (RCW 13.34.180(1)(d))? | Franks: Department delayed mental-health and parenting services and failed to offer integrated dual-diagnosis treatment. | State: services were repeatedly offered; mother repeatedly declined or failed to follow through; some services would have been futile given her unwillingness. | Finding that necessary services were offered/provided (or futile to offer) is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did the Department prove current parental unfitness and that termination is in children's best interests? | Franks: she could meet basic needs and severing bonds would harm children. | State: ongoing addiction, repeated relapses, missed visits, and harm from inconsistent contact made reunification unlikely and continuation harmful; termination advances permanency. | Court found clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of current unfitness and that termination is in best interests of V.F.-C. and M.-A.F.-S. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental liberty interest and burden of proof in termination proceedings)
- In re Dependency of J.B.S., 123 Wash.2d 1 (recognition of parental fundamental liberty interest under Washington law)
- In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wash.2d 689 (standard for reviewing constitutional challenges to dependency statutes)
- In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wash.2d 466 (requirement to find current unfitness before terminating rights)
- In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wash.2d 918 (interpretation of RCW 13.34.180(1)(f) regarding parent-child relationship impeding integration)
- In re Esgate, 99 Wash.2d 210 (termination may be proper without immediate adoptability where continuation causes instability)
- In re Dependency of K.D.S., 176 Wash.2d 644 (State need not prove available permanent placement to satisfy RCW 13.34.180(1)(f))