In re the Dependency of W. A.
34883-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Mother Kimberly Anderson has epilepsy, PTSD, depression, anxiety, and a history of substance use; son W.A. (Wesley) has selective mutism and a two-year developmental delay.
- School provided an IEP and therapies; Kimberly removed Wesley from public school in 2013 after a dispute over a weighted vest and began homeschooling but did not comply with Washington’s homeschool testing/verification requirements or obtain recommended speech/mental-health services.
- Kimberly suffered seizures (including a June 30, 2016 seizure while homeless) during which Wesley at times was left to attend to her; hospital personnel and CPS became involved and CPS took Wesley into protective custody.
- DSHS offered services (mental-health referrals, parenting assessment, drug testing, chemical-dependency evaluation, counseling); Kimberly declined most services.
- Trial court found dependency under RCW 13.34.030(6)(b) (abuse/neglect) and (c) (no capable parent), ordered out-of-home placement with DSHS; Kimberly appealed challenging findings and placement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Anderson) | Defendant's Argument (DSHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports dependency under RCW 13.34.030(6)(b) (neglect) | DSHS failed to prove abuse/neglect; seizure/conditions alone don’t justify dependency | Cumulative evidence (seizures leaving child unsupervised, unmet educational/developmental needs, refusal of services, substance history) shows negligent treatment | Held: Substantial evidence supports dependency under (6)(b) based on cumulative neglect |
| Whether court improperly relied on mother’s epilepsy/ disability | Epilepsy alone cannot deprive parent of custody; reliance on disability violates parental rights | Court did not base dependency solely on epilepsy; seizure was a contributing safety risk among other factors | Held: Court properly considered seizures as part of broader factual context; epilepsy alone was not the sole basis |
| Whether removal based on homeschooling noncompliance was improper | Failure to satisfy homeschool testing/supervision cannot, by itself, justify dependency or violate constitutional parenting rights | Failure to provide evidence of homeschooling, lack of required testing, and refusal to use public-school services left child’s educational/developmental needs unmet | Held: Noncompliance with homeschool requirements plus unaddressed therapy/education needs supported neglect finding |
| Whether out-of-home placement was proper (reasonable efforts / manifest danger) | Even if dependent, child could remain with mother with DSHS assistance | DSHS made and offered services which mother refused; evidence of manifest danger and inability to protect child in home | Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion; placement with DSHS affirmed (reasonable efforts shown; manifest danger found) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Dependency of Schermer, 161 Wn.2d 927 (2007) (standard for dependency and parent-capability analysis)
- In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600 (1992) (State must prove dependency by preponderance)
- In re Welfare of X T., 174 Wn. App. 733 (2013) (substantial-evidence standard on appeal)
- In re Dependency of Ca.R., 191 Wn. App. 601 (2015) (review of discretionary placement decisions)
- In re Marriage of Kovacs, 121 Wn.2d 795 (1993) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Johnson, 179 Wn.2d 534 (2014) (insufficiency of undeveloped constitutional arguments)