In Re The Dependency Of A.z.b., Jr.
49737-9
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- AZB born prematurely in Aug. 2014; parents (Mother, Father) both have significant mental-health diagnoses (Mother: persistent depressive disorder, social anxiety, PTSD, borderline intellectual functioning; Father: paranoid schizophrenia).
- After birth parents missed routine pediatric/wellness visits and some vaccinations; paternal grandmother (Davis) frequently cared for AZB and scheduled some medical/WIC appointments.
- WIC reported concerns about missed appointments and lack of documentation; DSHS investigated and filed a dependency petition after parents declined ongoing engagement in services.
- Psychological evaluator (Dr. Poppleton) testified parents’ mental illnesses and household chaos created a substantial risk to AZB’s psychological development and recommended third-party intervention and mental-health treatment.
- Juvenile court found AZB dependent under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c), entered out-of-home placement, and stated DSHS made reasonable efforts to prevent removal. Parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sufficient evidence supported dependency under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c) | Parents: mental illness alone insufficient; record does not show their conditions impaired parenting | DSHS: parents’ untreated mental illness, missed medical care, reliance on grandmother, and expert testimony show danger to child’s development | Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence (medical misses, expert testimony, parental behavior) supports dependency finding |
| Whether parents were “available” for out-of-home placement analysis under RCW 13.34.130(5)(a) | Parents: they were physically available and willing to care for AZB | DSHS: “available” requires ability to provide basic nurture/health/safety; parents’ deficiencies rendered them unavailable | Court: Affirmed — “available” means able to provide basic nurture/health/safety; parents’ conditions made them unavailable |
| Whether DSHS made "reasonable efforts" to prevent removal (statutory requirement for out-of-home placement) | Parents: DSHS failed to show or the court failed to find what services were offered/provided, so statutory findings lacking | DSHS: court found reasonable efforts were made (but record lacks specified findings) | Court: Reversed placement — trial court lacked specific factual findings about services/offers required by statute; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Kane v. Klos, 50 Wn.2d 778 (finding labels do not control whether an item is fact or conclusion)
- Willener v. Sweeting, 107 Wn.2d 388 (mislabelled findings are construed by their substance)
- In re Dependency of E.L.F., 117 Wn. App. 241 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in dependency proceedings)
- In re Dependency of Schermer, 161 Wn.2d 927 (parental mental illness may support dependency when it interferes with parenting ability)
- Booth v. Booth (In re Marriage of Booth), 114 Wn.2d 772 (use oral ruling to aid interpretation when written findings are incomplete)
- Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (use dictionary to define undefined statutory terms)