294 P.3d 695
Wash.2013Background
- Dependency established for K.D.S. as to Gladin in 2003 due to neglect.
- K.D.S. is 17 with neuro-behavioral disorders requiring institutional care and structured environment.
- State sought termination in 2009; Gladin contested; four days of trial testimony.
- State’s witnesses showed Gladin’s inconsistency, confrontation during visits, and inability to provide stability.
- Trial court found six elements proved; discussed that l(e) does not automatically prove l(f).
- Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds that State proved all elements; WA Supreme Court granted review to clarify independent proof requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does proof of RCW 13.34.180(l)(e) always prove RCW 13.34.180(l)(f)? | Gladin argues no; l(e) does not necessarily prove l(f). | State argues l(e) proof can suffice for l(f) per J.C. interpretation. | No; l(e) and l(f) must be proven independently. |
| Did the State prove that continuing parent-child relationship diminished KD.S.’s chances for a permanent home by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence? | Gladin contends insufficient proof of diminishing prospects. | State contends evidence supports termination under l(f). | Yes; substantial evidence supports all six elements, including l(f). |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dependency of J.C., 130 Wn.2d 418 (1996) (holding that l(e) proof does not automatically compel l(f) but that overlap may occur)
- In re K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918 (1999) (state must prove each element; l(f) independently reviewed when challenged)
- In re Esgate, 99 Wn.2d 210 (1983) (supports termination where continued relationship harms child despite low adoption prospects)
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (2010) (requires proving each termination factor clearly, cogently, and convincingly)