In Re The Dependency Of: E.a.e. Jerry Jasso-rodriguez, App. v. State Of Wa., Dshs, Res.
75110-7
Wash. Ct. App. UApr 24, 2017Background
- E.E. born June 18, 2014; taken into protective custody due to mother's substance abuse and placed in same foster home from ~3 months old through trial.
- Father Jerry Jasso‑Rodriguez was incarcerated in federal prison when E.E. was born (serving a ~66‑month sentence); he established paternity in Feb 2015 and agreed to dependency in Apr 2015.
- Dependency orders required father to participate in parenting classes and drug/alcohol services if available in prison and directed the Department to facilitate contact (telephone, mail, pictures).
- Father had regular communication with the social worker and GAL but never met or had meaningful contact with E.E.; he began parenting classes shortly before trial and was transferred to a treatment program that would take months to complete.
- The Department filed to terminate parental rights in July 2015; at the March 2016 termination trial the juvenile court found the six statutory termination factors proven and that termination was in E.E.’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jasso‑Rodriguez) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court adequately considered statutory incarceration factors before termination | Court failed to adequately weigh the 2013 incarceration‑specific factors and didn’t make formal findings on them | Court considered the factors (communications, efforts, barriers) in oral ruling and detailed written findings | Court held the court properly considered incarceration factors; substantial evidence supports findings |
| Whether continuation of the parent‑child relationship diminishes child’s prospects for early permanency (RCW 13.34.180(1)(f)) | Continuation would not clearly diminish prospects because Department failed to facilitate contact and father made efforts | Father had no meaningful role due to incarceration, child is an infant, long sentence would delay permanency | Court held continuation clearly diminishes prospects; termination factor proven |
| Whether all necessary services reasonably available were offered/provided (RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)) | Department relied only on in‑prison services and should have sought outside providers given prison restrictions | Court‑ordered services were available in prison; Dept. regularly communicated about services; no obligation shown to secure outside services | Court held all necessary, reasonably available services were offered/provided |
| Whether there was little likelihood conditions would be remedied in the near future (RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)) | Father’s willingness to enter treatment shows conditions could be remedied soon | Father’s release was years away; even with treatment reduction earliest release still many months in future—too long from child’s POV | Court held little likelihood of near‑future remedy; factor proven |
| Whether court violated due process by relying on domestic violence evidence not alleged as a deficiency | Father contends lack of notice that domestic violence could be a basis for termination | Court expressly found domestic violence was not a basis for termination; evidence was admitted without objection | Court held no due process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody of their children)
- In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (clear, cogent, and convincing standard; review of termination findings)
- In re Parental Rights of K.J.B., 187 Wn.2d 592 (requirements for considering incarceration factors and sufficiency of findings)
- In re Welfare of E.D., 195 Wn. App. 673 (discussion of weight to give incarceration considerations)