In re Parental Rights to D.H., 195 Wn.2d 710

Background

Four children removed from mother B.B. in 2015 after long history (since 2009) of referrals for neglect, unsanitary home, unmet medical needs, school neglect, and domestic violence.
Dependency established; court-ordered evaluations and multiple services provided (parenting programs, individual therapy, Family Preservation, Promoting First Relationships, domestic violence treatment, visitation supervision) over ~3 years.
October–November 2016 neuropsychological evaluation (Dr. Shepel) found average cognition but deficits in applying knowledge in real-life parenting; recommended 12 months of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT).
DBT unavailable locally until February 2018; B.B. began DBT then and completed only about one month before termination trial; neuropsych eval itself was completed after several referrals (Nov. 2016).
Trial held March–April 2018; parental rights terminated July 2018. B.B. appealed, arguing Department failed its RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) obligation as to (1) delayed/insufficient DBT, (2) delayed neuropsychological evaluation, and (3) inadequately tailored parenting education. Supreme Court affirmed the termination, finding substantial evidence services were offered/provided and either reasonably unavailable earlier or unlikely to correct deficiencies within the foreseeable future.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (B.B.)	Defendant's Argument (Department)	Held
Adequacy/timing of DBT (delay and trial before completion)	DBT was the neuropsychologist’s recommended, necessary service; substantial delay and termination after only one month was premature.	DBT was not reasonably available locally until Feb 2018; even if delayed, DBT completion would not likely correct parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future.	Court: DBT was not reasonably available earlier; no evidence DBT completion would have corrected deficiencies in foreseeable future; termination affirmed.
Timeliness of neuropsychological evaluation	Evaluation was delayed ~1 year; delay harmed ability to tailor and obtain recommended services.	Dept. issued referrals and evaluation was completed with time to follow recommendations; delay did not create a separate, unaddressed basis for termination.	Court: Delay did not create a separate basis for termination nor result in failure to provide the service; substantial evidence supports that delay did not significantly impact ability to correct deficiencies.
Whether parenting education was tailored to B.B.’s cognitive/mental health needs	Parenting programs were not sufficiently adapted to her learning/apply-in-practice deficits (needed repetition, role-play, DBT focus).	Dept. provided evaluations, individualized services, one-on-one instruction, repetition/role-modeling in several programs; services were tailored and reasonably available.	Court: Substantial evidence shows Department identified needs and provided tailored services; adequacy upheld.

Key Cases Cited

In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (2016) (defines “necessary service” under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) and standard for services).
In re Parental Rights to B.P., 186 Wn.2d 292 (2016) (reversed termination where State failed to provide attachment services after mother remedied other deficiencies).
In re Welfare of S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873 (2011) (delay in providing mental-health services can create an unaddressed deficiency that requires reversal).
In re Welfare of C.S., 168 Wn.2d 51 (2010) (Department’s failure to provide necessary services can invalidate termination).
In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181 (2005) (reversal where parental deficiencies not identified and services not offered).
In re Welfare of Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842 (1983) (State must at minimum provide referral list for recommended services).
In re Parental Rights to I.M.-M., 196 Wn. App. 914 (2016) (services must be tailored to parent’s specific needs).
In re Parental Rights to K.J.B., 187 Wn.2d 592 (2017) (emphasizes reunification as paramount goal of child-welfare statutes).