In re the Adoption of: C. W. S., C. L. S., and G. D. S.
33260-8
Wash. Ct. App.Nov 15, 2016Background
- Rachel Smith, a mother with long-term substance abuse and severe psychiatric history, had supervised visitation with her three children after divorce; contact ceased in April 2014 and was reduced to monitored weekly calls.
- Her substance use and psychiatric crises included repeated ER visits, multiple inpatient treatment attempts (with at least one noncompletion), suicide attempts, and criminal incidents; the children were primarily cared for by their father and his new wife, June.
- June petitioned to terminate Rachel’s parental rights under the adoption statutes (Title 26 RCW) on August 20, 2013, seeking to adopt the children; the trial court held a bench trial in February 2015 and terminated Rachel’s parental rights on March 6, 2015.
- Rachel appealed the termination order (filed March 26, 2015); the adoption decree was entered March 27, 2015 but Rachel did not appeal that decree.
- Rachel’s appellate claim: the adoption-based termination violated equal protection because, unlike dependency-based termination (Title 13 RCW), the adoption process does not require the State to offer remedial services prior to termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (June) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Must Smith also appeal the subsequent adoption decree? | Termination appeal suffices; no need to appeal adoption decree. | Failure to appeal adoption decree deprives court of review. | Held: Appeal of termination order is timely and proper under RAP 2.2(a)(6) and RCW 26.33.130; court has jurisdiction. |
| Must Smith serve the AG when challenging statute? | No; this is not a declaratory judgment action, so RCW 7.24.110 does not apply. | Argued AG notice required for constitutional challenge. | Held: No AG service required because Smith did not bring a declaratory judgment action. |
| Waiver under RAP 2.5(a): Can Smith raise equal protection for first time on appeal? | The claim is manifest constitutional error so it may be raised on appeal. | Argued she waived the issue by not raising it below. | Held: Court exercises discretion to consider the constitutional claim because it implicates fundamental rights and addresses the merits. |
| Equal protection: Does the adoption statute’s lack of required remedial services violate equal protection compared to dependency statutes? | Adoption termination treats similarly situated parents differently by not requiring state-offered remedial services, violating equal protection. | Parents terminated via adoption are not similarly situated to those in dependency proceedings; differences justify different procedures. | Held: No equal protection violation. Parents in adoption proceedings are not similarly situated to dependency parents; prior decision (Skinner) supports rational basis review and upholds Title 26 scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing parental liberty interest in custody)
- State v. Manussier, 129 Wn.2d 652 (Washington equal protection analysis principles)
- In re Welfare of C.S., 168 Wn.2d 51 (defining "necessary services" in dependency context)
- In re Interest of Infant Child Skinner, 97 Wn. App. 108 (holding adoption statutes need not provide State-offered remedial services; adoption and dependency proceedings differ)
- In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689 (statutory-presumption and constitutionality standards)