In re Dependency of E.M., 484 P.3d 461

E.M., born 2015, was a dependent child who had lived with his grandmother since birth.
After placement disputes between his parents and grandmother, the King County Superior Court ordered E.M. placed in foster care, separating him from family for the first time.
Grandmother retained private counsel (Ms. Sutton) five days after the foster placement; the Department would not permit counsel to meet or obtain contact information for E.M.
Counsel filed a notice of appearance and a motion to reconsider placement; the court appointed a guardian ad litem the same day.
The superior court struck the private counsel’s notice of appearance, citing RCW 13.34.100 and ethical concerns, and refused to hear the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding RCW 13.34.100 does not require court appointment of privately retained counsel and that the trial court had to consider whether limited emergency authorization under RPC 1.14 applied before striking the appearance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCW 13.34.100 requires court appointment before privately retained counsel may represent a child in dependency proceedings	Mother / private counsel: statute does not require court appointment; children (when capable) and interested parties may retain private counsel	Department: statute contemplates court gatekeeping; court must appoint or approve counsel before representation	RCW 13.34.100 does not require privately retained attorneys to be appointed by the court before commencing representation
Whether the trial court properly struck the notice of appearance based on ethical/authority concerns without considering implied emergency authorization under the Rules of Professional Conduct	Mother / private counsel: court erred by not considering RPC 1.14 comment 9 (narrow emergency implied authorization) and other sources of authority before striking appearance	Department / Father: counsel lacked authority and posed ethical conflicts (no client contact, possible third-party direction) so striking was appropriate	Court must consider whether representation may be impliedly authorized under RPC 1.14 before striking an appearance; failure to do so was reversible error

Jametsky v. Olsen, 179 Wn.2d 756 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (use plain meaning to construe statutes)
Cockle v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 142 Wn.2d 801 (statutory ambiguity principles)
Bohn v. Cody, 119 Wn.2d 357 (tests for formation of attorney-client relationship)
In re McGlothlen, 99 Wn.2d 515 (authority for attorney-client relationship principles)
In re Marriage of Wixom, 182 Wn. App. 881 (court authority to safeguard ethical practice)
In re Dependency of M.S.R., 174 Wn.2d 1 (standing where parental custody interests affected)
In re Dependency of E.H., 191 Wn.2d 872 (discussion of counsel appointment and children’s rights)