In Re The Dependency Of: A.d.r. Reina Rife v. Dshs
74351-1
Wash. Ct. App. UFeb 13, 2017Background
- Parents Danny and Reina Rife faced termination proceedings for two children (M.R., b.2006; A.R., b.2007) after prolonged dependency and removal from Reina’s care; both children diagnosed with PTSD and severe attachment/trauma-related issues.
- Danny had not seen the children since 2009 due to a lifetime no-contact order (NCO) entered in a Georgia dissolution; he did not return to Washington or complete court-ordered services for several years.
- The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) initiated services and repeatedly referred Danny to providers; the court ordered a parenting assessment (including a parent-child observation) in 2012.
- Danny returned to Washington in March 2015, the NCO was lifted in May 2015, he completed a parenting assessment without parent-child observation in September 2015, and therapists recommended against immediate visitation because it would likely exacerbate the children’s PTSD and that reunification would be lengthy.
- The trial court found DSHS offered all necessary, reasonably available services, found both parents unfit, and terminated parental rights; Danny and Reina appealed, raising (inter alia) service-deficiency, continuance, and appointment-of-counsel issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DSHS satisfied RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) — offered all necessary, reasonably available services to Danny | Danny: DSHS failed to provide a complete parenting assessment (no parent-child observation) and prevented recommended visitation, so services requirement unmet | DSHS: Referred and repeatedly urged Danny to complete services; Danny failed to avail himself over several years; the parent-child observation would have been futile given children’s trauma and timelines | Held: Affirmed — substantial evidence DSHS offered necessary services and Danny failed to avail himself; even if unavailable earlier, parent-child observation would have been futile given children’s foreseeable future and needs. |
| Whether inability to complete parent-child component (due to NCO) excuses Danny’s noncompliance | Danny: NCO legally prevented him from completing the observation until lifted in May 2015; therefore DSHS did not truly offer required services | DSHS: Danny made no credible effort to have NCO lifted earlier and gave inconsistent excuses; courts may find services futile relative to children’s age/timeline | Held: Affirmed — court credited findings that Danny’s absence was largely voluntary; even accepting NCO constraint, offering the observation then would not have remedied deficiencies within foreseeable future. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion/violated due process by denying Reina’s requested continuance (10 weeks) | Reina: Chemotherapy, cancer treatment, panic attacks and immune-compromise made longer continuance necessary for presence and adequate representation | State: Children need permanence; counsel had been on case long; court provided accommodations and granted a shorter (4-week) continuance | Held: Affirmed — denial of longer continuance not an abuse of discretion or constitutional violation; no showing of prejudice or that result would differ. |
| Whether court erred by denying appointment of counsel for the children under federal/Washington due process | Reina: Children’s severe trauma and prolonged dependency required counsel; CASA did not adequately elicit children’s wishes | State: Appointment is discretionary; M.S.R. balancing applies; CASA and court accommodations sufficed; appointment would not improve welfare | Held: Affirmed — no abuse of discretion under Mathews factors; even if state-constitutional right existed, any error was harmless because unchallenged findings supported termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (2010) (two-step test for termination: parental unfitness under RCW 13.34.180(1) then best interests)
- In re Welfare of M.S.R., 174 Wn.2d 1 (2012) (federal due process requires case-by-case balancing for appointment of counsel to children)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (three-factor due process balancing test)
- In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149 (2001) (services requirement excused where services would be futile as to foreseeable future)
- In re Welfare of C.B., C.R.B., and T.A.B., 134 Wn. App. 942 (2006) (standard of review and substantial evidence in dependency/termination appeals)
- State v. Downing, 151 Wn.2d 265 (2004) (denial/grant of continuance reviewed for abuse of discretion)