In re the Dependency of: A.A.L., 35009-6

Two young children (Amy and Aaron) were found in November 2016 living in a trailer with extremely unsanitary and unsafe conditions; children had multiple wounds and feces on their bodies.
Law enforcement arrested mother Lucia Thomas at the trailer; DSHS removed the children and placed them in foster care.
Father Aaron Lidner, Sr. had intermittent contact, a history of drug use in the family, refused many DSHS services, and declined to provide requested urinalyses.
Lidner gave inconsistent testimony about his presence at the trailer and whether he had seen the children shortly before removal.
The State filed dependency petitions; at the January 17, 2017 hearing the trial court found the children dependent as to Lidner under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c) and ordered continued out-of-home placement with DSHS.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding substantial evidence supported the dependency finding and the placement decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports finding children dependent as to Lidner under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c)	Lidner argued insufficient evidence he was incapable of adequately caring for the children; claimed limited or no knowledge of trailer conditions	State argued Lidner knew or should have known of the hazardous conditions, refused services, had minimal involvement, and therefore was incapable of providing adequate care	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported dependency finding (court may infer incapacity from facts and credibility findings)
Whether placement outside the home was justified	Lidner sought return of children to his custody	State argued reasonable efforts and services were offered/declined, Lidner lived with mother accused of mistreatment, and a manifest danger existed to the children	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion ordering continued out-of-home placement with DSHS

In re Dependency of Schermer, 161 Wn.2d 927, 169 P.3d 452 (2007) (scope of dependency under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c) and parental-capability inquiry)
In re Welfare of Key, 119 Wn.2d 600, 836 P.2d 200 (1992) (State bears preponderance burden to prove statutory dependency)
In re Welfare of XT., 174 Wn. App. 733, 300 P.3d 824 (2013) (standard for substantial evidence review in dependency cases)
In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689, 611 P.2d 1245 (1980) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Vermette v. Andersen, 16 Wn. App. 466, 558 P.2d 258 (1976) (conflicting testimony does not defeat substantial evidence when court discredits some testimony)
In re Dependency of Ca.R., 191 Wn. App. 601, 365 P.3d 186 (2015) (standard of review for discretionary placement decisions)
In re Dependency of J.B.S., 123 Wn.2d 1, 863 P.2d 1344 (1993) (child's best interest paramount in placement decisions)