In Re The Dependency Of: C.l.m. Latae Maria Mitchell, App. v. State Of Wa., Dshs, Res., 74911-1

Background

Parents Latae Mitchell and Kenneth Madden were subject to agreed dependency orders in 2011 after evidence of domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health problems, and child abuse; both had significant criminal histories and mental health diagnoses.
Court-ordered services included psychological evaluation with parenting component, substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, urinalyses, parenting instruction, and visitation plans; both parents received various services over years but had inconsistent participation.
Mitchell had diagnoses (intermittent explosive disorder, ADHD, personality disorder traits), violent incidents, incomplete treatment, and subsequent criminal convictions; she did not make sufficient behavioral improvements and missed visits.
Madden had diagnoses (ADHD, depression, anxiety, borderline intellectual functioning), received psychiatric intakes, medication, counseling, and IFPS/Homebuilders parenting instruction but inconsistently engaged, missed UAs and visits, and continued substance use (including PCP).
Petition: DSHS sought termination of both parents’ rights; Mitchell and Madden sought guardianship with maternal aunt and husband (the Meridas). Home studies conflicted: DSHS’s specialist opposed guardianship due to children’s severe trauma-related behaviors; parents’ consultant supported guardianship.
After a 13-day trial the juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights and denied the guardianship petition, finding services were offered/provided, additional psychological testing would have been futile, and guardianship was not in the children’s best interests due to lack of bond, inadequate experience of proposed guardians, need for DSHS oversight, and risk of disrupting children’s stabilizing placements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DSHS provided all court‑ordered services (psychological evaluation) for termination under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)	Madden: DSHS failed to provide the ordered psychological evaluation, so services element not proven by clear, cogent, convincing evidence	DSHS/Madden (trial finding): Equivalent services (psychiatric evaluation, counseling, medication, IFPS) rendered the ordered evaluation unnecessary; additional evaluation would be futile	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence that equivalent services were provided and additional evaluation would have been futile; services element satisfied.
Whether futility justified not providing the psychological evaluation	Madden: Even if equivalent services existed, court lacked substantial evidence that an evaluation would be futile	DSHS: Record shows repeated nonengagement and failure to apply services, so further offers would be futile	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence of inconsistent participation and prior failure to utilize services supports futility finding.
Whether guardianship with the Meridas was in children’s best interests under RCW 13.36.040(2)(a)	Mitchell/Madden: Guardianship preferable; Meridas prepared, family placement and preserving parental/extended-family contact benefits outweigh risks	DSHS: Meridas lack sufficient experience; children need continued DSHS oversight and specialized supports; placement would disrupt children’s stabilizing, adoptable placements	Court: Affirmed denial — preponderance of evidence supports that guardianship was not in best interests given lack of bond, limited guardian experience, children’s needs, and risk of destabilization.
Whether parents waived service‑provision challenge by joining guardianship petition	DSHS: By joining guardianship petition, Madden waived argument that DSHS failed to provide services	Madden: Waiver does not apply to termination standard (clear, cogent, convincing proof)	Court: Rejected DSHS waiver argument on appeal; considered merits and ruled against Madden on evidence.

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental‑rights termination requires heightened due process)
In re Dependency of D.A., 124 Wn. App. 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (court may consider services parents received whether or not provided by the State)
In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (Wash. 2016) (court may find services futile where record supports that additional offers would not change outcome)
In re Welfare of C.S., 168 Wn.2d 51 (Wash. 2010) (discussing when offer of services may be excused as futile)
In re Parental Rights to B.P., 186 Wn.2d 292 (Wash. 2016) (failure to utilize services can show futility)
In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689 (Wash. 2015) (standards for awarding guardianship vs. termination)
In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for ‘‘substantial evidence’’ in termination proceedings)
In re Welfare of S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (deference to trial court on credibility and weight of evidence)