In Re The Adoption Of: W.r.h.
55360-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Child WRH born 2014; father AH never lived with child and was incarcerated in 2016 (120‑month sentence) and likely remains imprisoned until ~2026.
- In 2019 DW and MW sought to adopt WRH and terminate parental rights; mother voluntarily relinquished; AH opposed only to preserve post‑adoption contact/visitation.
- At bench trial the court orally found by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that AH failed to perform parental duties and termination was in the child’s best interest, but the written order omitted an express finding of parental unfitness and did not recite the statutory standard.
- Record showed limited contact after WRH was 15 months old, negligible financial/support contributions since incarceration, and DW/MW providing for WRH’s needs in California.
- Trial court denied AH’s continuance request for DOC phone records and refused to order posttermination contact over the adoptive parents’ objection.
- Appellate court remanded for an express written finding on parental unfitness (failure to perform duties showing substantial lack of regard) but declined to order dismissal, and upheld denial of continuance and refusal to order posttermination contact.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant (AH) Argument | Respondents (DW/MW) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Written unfitness finding / due process | Trial court violated due process by terminating rights without an express written finding of parental unfitness or reciting statutory test | Oral findings tracking statute suffice and demonstrate intent to find unfitness | Remand: cannot imply unfitness from the sparse written order; trial court must enter an express written finding addressing whether clear, cogent, and convincing evidence shows failure to perform duties with substantial lack of regard |
| Consideration of child’s best interests before unfitness | Court improperly prioritized best interests over first finding parental unfitness | Best interests may be considered concurrently under adoption statute; unfitness still required per RCW 26.33.120(1) | No due process violation in considering best interests simultaneously; statutory unfitness finding still required |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination | Evidence insufficient to meet clear, cogent, and convincing standard | Record (long incarceration, limited contact, no support, no caregiving) supports substantial lack of regard | Court declines to reverse on sufficiency; evidence could support termination on existing record, but trial court must make express written findings on unfitness |
| Posttermination contact / open adoption authority | Trial court could use equitable power to order postadoption contact despite adoptive parents’ objection | RCW 26.33.295(2) requires adoptive parents’ written approval for open‑adoption/communication orders | Trial court correctly refused; statute bars ordering contact without adoptive parents’ written consent |
| Denial of continuance for DOC phone records | Denial abused discretion; records relevant to contact history and placement report | Records would at most change placement report to recommend an open adoption, which the trial court cannot order without adoptive parents’ consent; outcome unaffected | No abuse of discretion: records would not have changed the substantive outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights termination requires showing of parental unfitness)
- In re Interests of H.J.P., 114 Wn.2d 522 (statutory parental‑duty factors for adoption termination)
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (express unfitness finding required; appellate court will not imply unfitness absent clear record)
- In re Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92 (in adoption cases court may consider best interests at outset; unfitness still required under statute)
- In re Adoption of K.M.T., 195 Wn. App. 548 (remand required where written findings did not address substantial lack of regard)
- In re Interest of Pawling, 101 Wn.2d 392 (upholding termination where incarcerated father had minimal support/contact)
- In re Interests of Infant Skinner, 97 Wn. App. 108 (criminal history and incarceration relevant to termination analysis)
- In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736 (standard: clear, cogent, and convincing evidence required)