In Re The Dependency Of: E.a.s., Dob: 9/16/03., Christiana Ostrander v. Dshs
74641-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Two children were removed from mother Christiana Ostrander in March 2014; dependency was entered July 2014 and children placed with maternal grandmother.
- Dependency findings included the mother’s substance abuse, unstable housing, mental health issues, lack of supervision, and school attendance concerns.
- Court-ordered services included chemical dependency evaluation and treatment, psychological evaluation and counseling, parenting classes, random UAs, and sober support meetings; mother completed evaluations but did not meaningfully complete treatment or services.
- Mother relocated out of county, had sporadic visitation, missed many UA tests, disputed she had a substance problem, and gave various reasons (health, schedule, work) for noncompliance.
- Department filed to terminate parental rights in June 2015; after a three-day trial in November 2015 the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights to both children.
Issues
| Issue | Ostrander's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSHS provided all necessary, reasonably available services (RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)) | Ostrander says transportation delays and voucher timing impeded access; services not timely provided | DSHS provided or offered required services; voucher delays were limited and mother had other transportation options; mother failed to engage | Court: Finding that necessary services were offered is supported (affirmed) |
| Whether there was little likelihood conditions would be remedied in the near future (RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)) | Ostrander asserts she had stabilized housing, employment, and sobriety; thus deficiencies remediable | DSHS points to refusal/denial of substance problem, missed UAs, failure to complete recommended treatment, psychological issues | Court: Substantial evidence supports little likelihood of remediation (affirmed) |
| Whether mother prioritized children (relevant to best interests) | Ostrander argues she loved children and focused on housing/work to enable reunification | DSHS shows mother prioritized employment/housing over court-ordered services and missed requirements | Court: Supported finding mother did not make children a priority (affirmed) |
| Whether termination is in children’s best interest (second-step; preponderance) | Ostrander contends parental bonds and claimed stability weigh against termination | DSHS emphasizes children’s need for permanence, mother’s lack of progress over ~21 months, unresolved substance/mental health issues | Court: Termination is in children’s best interest (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (2010) (two-step termination process; RCW 13.34.180 requirements)
- In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918 (1999) (clear, cogent, and convincing standard; appellate deference to juvenile court findings)
- In re Dependency of M.S.R., 174 Wn.2d 1 (2012) (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)
- In re Welfare of T.B., 150 Wn. App. 599 (2009) (parent’s unwillingness to use services relevant to remedy likelihood)
- In re Welfare of A.G., 155 Wn. App. 578 (2010) (termination appropriate where deficiencies will not be corrected within foreseeable future)
- In re Sego, 82 Wn.2d 736 (1973) (parental rights are fundamental and termination warrants the most powerful reasons)