In Re The Dep Of D.c-c., Janaye M. Clausen, V. Dcyf, 81521-1

Background:

D.C.-C., born March 2015, is an Indian child (Upper Skagit enrollment; Nooksack lineage). Dependency filed when he was six months old after mother’s drug activity; adjudicated dependent in Dec. 2015.
Mother has longstanding opioid/stimulant addiction, criminal history, intermittent incarceration, periodic sobriety (including while hospitalized/rehab after a June 2018 car accident) but multiple relapses and poor engagement with services.
Juvenile court ordered substance-abuse treatment, random UAs, mental-health assessment, NCAST/parenting instruction, and maintenance of safe/stable/sober housing; case involved LICWAC and tribal participation by Nooksack and Upper Skagit.
During ~5-year dependency the child had 10 placements, significant behavioral problems tied to instability and sporadic visitation; placement with paternal cousin Jordin Cummings (Upper Skagit member) became stable by Sept. 2019.
Department provided outpatient treatment referrals, parenting services, transportation assistance, repeated outreach, and attempted to facilitate long-term inpatient treatment after an Oct. 2019 evaluation; mother was often noncompliant and delayed signing releases.
Termination trial began Feb. 2020; trial court found statutory prerequisites and ICWA/WICWA requirements met, concluded continued custody would likely cause serious emotional damage, and terminated mother’s parental rights; appeal followed.

Issues:

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether “necessary services” (RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)) were provided	Dept failed to assist with stable housing and did not provide long-term inpatient treatment	Housing was not an identified parental deficiency; Dept provided appropriate available services (IOP, UAs, parenting, mental-health assessment); inpatient was recommended late and mother was noncompliant	Court affirmed: Dept met its burden; housing not a required service here and inpatient was not required or capable of correcting deficiencies within foreseeable future
Whether ICWA/WICWA “active efforts” were made	Dept’s efforts were passive; it failed to directly contact the inpatient facility or sufficiently assist earlier	Dept engaged tribes, used LICWAC, provided services, aided overcoming barriers (transportation, paperwork), repeatedly attempted contact and obtained releases, and followed up on inpatient recommendation	Court affirmed: active efforts requirement satisfied (trial court’s findings supported by substantial evidence)
Whether Dept proved beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage (ICWA §1912(f))	No specific finding of causal link; insufficient evidence tying mother’s home conditions to likely serious harm	Evidence showed mother’s relapses made her unavailable; instability and multiple placements caused trauma and behavioral issues; experts and GAL tied instability to emotional harm	Court affirmed: causal relationship shown and standard met; continued custody likely to cause serious emotional damage
Whether termination was in child’s best interests	Mother loved child, had periods of compliance/ housing, and termination was premature	Nearly five years of services with little likelihood of remedy; mother repeatedly failed to maintain sobriety; child requires permanence and stability	Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports termination as in child’s best interests
Whether juvenile court violated separation of powers by ordering Dept to file termination petition	Order directing Dept to file termination petition was improper	Termination is a separate proceeding; the dependency-order directing filing is part of a different proceeding and not before this appeal	Court found the dependency-order challenge was not properly before it (not void); even if considered, challenge would fail

Key Cases Cited

In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2011) (sets out statutory prerequisites for termination)
In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (Wash. 2016) (finding implied parental unfitness when statutory elements satisfied)
In re Dependency of A.L.K., 196 Wn.2d 686 (Wash. 2020) (mixed question of law and fact for active efforts; review de novo whether findings meet ICWA)
In re Parental Rights to D.J.S., 12 Wn. App. 2d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses threshold between passive and active efforts)
In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001) (explains RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) requires services necessary, available, and capable of correcting deficiencies)