Guardianship Of Shr., Anjuli Hammond v. Dshs, State Of Washington, 75025-9

Background

Child S.H.-R., a Lummi Nation member, was removed from mother Anjuli Hammond's custody after incidents in 2012 showing unstable, psychotic, and potentially dangerous parenting; guardianship was sought for maternal grandmothers.
Hammond has a history of mental health issues, developmental delays, domestic violence involvement, substance concerns, and violated a no-contact order by continuing contact with a partner (Maier) the Department viewed as dangerous.
The Department provided multiple services (psychological evaluations, domestic violence referrals, substance evaluations, therapy, supervised visitation, drug screenings) and required compliance under a dependency order; Hammond intermittently engaged but missed many drug screens, violated orders, and misrepresented ongoing contact with Maier.
After ~43 months of dependency and mixed compliance, the Department petitioned for guardianship; the trial court granted it and denied Hammond’s reconsideration motion challenging the Department’s “active efforts.”
Hammond appealed, arguing the Department failed to meet ICWA/WICWA “active efforts” and qualified-expert proof requirements and that there was insufficient evidence that return in the near future was unlikely.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hammond)	Defendant's Argument (DSHS)	Held
Whether the Department made “active efforts” under ICWA/WICWA to prevent breakup of the Indian family	Department did not meet the higher ICWA/WICWA standard; trial court applied incorrect/legal insufficient standard	Department actively engaged beyond referrals, provided tailored services and support but Hammond failed to use them	Court held Department made active efforts and those efforts were unsuccessful; substantial evidence supports finding
Whether “active efforts” under ICWA/WICWA impose a higher substance/quality standard than reasonable efforts	T.A.W. means active efforts are more exacting	Active efforts require affirmative steps but not a different quantitative standard from reasonable efforts in this record	Court held T.A.W. does not raise the standard here; trial court properly applied active-efforts concept and found efforts were active
Whether testimony from the Tribe’s caseworker qualified as the expert proof required that continued custody would likely cause serious harm	Charles (Tribal caseworker) was not a qualified expert under §1912(e)	Charles had relevant tribal/cultural perspective and Hammond did not object at trial	Issue waived for appeal; regardless, record contained sufficient expert and other testimony to satisfy the requirement
Whether substantial evidence supports finding little likelihood child could be returned to mother in the near future	Hammond had made progress and could care for child	Long period of dependency, repeated violations and poor judgment (contact with Maier), and insufficient corrective progress	Court held substantial evidence supports conclusion that return in the near future was unlikely

Key Cases Cited

In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689 (discusses standard of review for guardianship factual findings)
In re Adoption of T.A.W., 186 Wn.2d 828 (clarifies ICWA/WICWA context and who bears burden to prove active efforts)
In re Dependency of A.M., 106 Wn. App. 123 (addresses scope of active/rehabilitative efforts under ICWA)
In re Interest of Mahaney, 146 Wn.2d 878 (expert qualification through cultural knowledge in ICWA cases)
In re Dependency of T.H., 139 Wn. App. 784 (visitation is not a remedial service under ICWA)
In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149 (focus of "near future" inquiry is whether parental deficiencies have been corrected)
In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129 (framework on parental deficiency correction in dependency cases)
In re Dependency of P.D., 58 Wn. App. 18 (parent’s refusal to use services excuses the State from offering extra services)