In Re The Custody Of: K.c.n, A Minor Child, 48896-5

Child KCN born March 2011 to mother CME and biological father ILH; CME married stepfather JCE in 2012.
CME did not notify ILH of the birth, omitted him from the birth certificate, and limited or refused his visitation requests after early 2012; last agreed in‑person contact was February 2012.
CME and JCE sought termination of ILH’s parental rights and adoption by JCE in December 2014; ILH later established paternity and sought visitation/child support.
Trial court initially stayed visitation proceedings pending resolution of the termination action; bench trial held March 2016 on termination petition.
Trial court denied the petition to terminate ILH’s parental rights, entered findings acknowledging ILH’s limited financial support and sporadic contact but concluding petitioner failed to prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that ILH’s failures amounted to a substantial lack of regard for parental obligations.
CME appealed, challenging several factual findings as unsupported and arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying termination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether specific trial court findings (1, 3, 5, 9,10,11) lack substantial evidence	CME: Findings contain factual errors (age, dates, scope of contact) and are unsupported by record	ILH/Court: Evidence (testimony, texts, exhibits) supports findings or errors are harmless	Court: Some minor errors existed but were either supported by evidence or immaterial to outcome; findings upheld in part and harmless where inaccurate
Whether denial of termination was an abuse of discretion under RCW 26.33.120	CME: Trial court failed to apply or address parental‑duty factors and no reasonable factfinder could reject termination	ILH/Court: Even if duties were imperfectly performed, mother impeded father’s relationship; petitioner failed to prove failures showed a "substantial lack of regard" by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court properly required and found petitioner did not meet the statutory clear, cogent, and convincing threshold given evidence that mother hindered father’s access

In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736 (state standard for reviewing findings and substantial‑evidence test under higher burdens) (setting standard for factual review under varying burdens of proof)
Hollingbery v. Dunn, 68 Wn.2d 75 (review standard for findings and conclusions) (quoted for review framework)
In re H.J.P., 114 Wn.2d 522 (termination under RCW 26.33.120) (discusses threshold inquiry re: failure to perform parental duties)
In re Adoption of Lybbert, 75 Wn.2d 671 (definition of parental obligations) (lists minimum parental duties considered in termination analysis)
In re Adoption of K.M.T., 195 Wn. App. 548 (clarifies necessity of finding substantial lack of regard for duties) (reversed termination where court failed to make that finding)
In re A.B., 181 Wn. App. 45 (explains "clear, cogent, and convincing" standard and substantial‑evidence review) (used to frame evidentiary standard)
In re Webb's Adoption, 14 Wn. App. 651 (abuse of discretion standard in termination/abandonment contexts) (trial court discretion deference)
In re Custody of L.M.S., 187 Wn.2d 567 (deference to trial court on custody‑type determinations) (applies abuse of discretion review)
State v. B.J.S., 140 Wn. App. 91 (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal) (noting appellate effect of unchallenged findings)
Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (assignments of error unsupported by argument are waived) (explains appellate waiver rule)