In Re The Dependency Of: J.a.g.
48777-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- J.A.G., a 14-year-old, was removed from her mother’s care after evidence of methamphetamine use in the home and the mother’s eviction; mother entered an agreed dependency; father D.G. lived in Montana and had not seen J.A.G. in nine years.
- The Department filed a dependency petition as to D.G.; a contested fact-finding hearing occurred where social worker Machnik, GAL Bingham, J.A.G., and D.G. testified.
- J.A.G. testified she was fearful of being sent to Montana, wished to remain with her mother or current placement, and had limited phone contact with D.G. over the years.
- Machnik and Bingham testified placement with D.G. would likely harm J.A.G.’s psychological wellbeing and that counseling/ visitation would be necessary to rebuild the relationship.
- The juvenile court found (by preponderance) D.G. had been absent, provided little support, lacked a parental relationship, and that placing J.A.G. with him now would be psychologically damaging; it concluded dependence under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c).
- D.G. appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of a danger of substantial damage to J.A.G.’s psychological or physical development.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (D.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports findings that placement with D.G. would cause danger of substantial damage to the child’s psychological or physical development | Testimony (GAL, social worker, child) showed danger to J.A.G.’s psychological well-being if forced to relocate and live with an absent parent; dependency is lenient and may be based on danger | Evidence insufficient: no proof of actual or likely substantial harm; D.G. contends his intent and willingness to reunify negate incapacity | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supports findings; danger of substantial harm need not be actual harm, only a sufficient risk under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c). |
Key Cases Cited
- Schermer v. Department of Social and Health Services, 161 Wn.2d 927 (2007) (dependency standard is lenient; state may act on danger of harm without waiting for actual damage)
- Key, In re Welfare of, 119 Wn.2d 600 (1992) (dependency is preliminary and aims to reunify families)
- T.L.G., In re Dependency of, 126 Wn. App. 181 (2005) (dependency proceedings designed to help parents remedy problems leading to state intervention)
- E.L.F., In re Dependency of, 117 Wn. App. 241 (2003) (substantial evidence standard in dependency appeals)
- C.B., In re Welfare of, 134 Wn. App. 942 (2006) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or assess credibility)
- P.D., In re Dependency of, 58 Wn. App. 18 (1990) (unchallenged findings are verities on appeal)
- Frederiksen, In re Welfare of, 25 Wn. App. 726 (1979) (state need not wait for actual damage before intervening)