In Re The Dependency Of S.m.m. Angela Waldo, App. v. State Of Wa., Dshs, Res., 76715-1

Background

Angela Waldo has two children; this appeal concerns termination of her parental rights to son S.M.M. after repeated removal due to Waldo’s substance use and parenting deficiencies.
Since a 2004 accident Waldo displayed opioid/benzodiazepine misuse, episodes of heavy sedation in the presence of her children, and drug-seeking behavior; she repeatedly denied having a substance use problem.
The juvenile court imposed services (substance treatment, random UAs, mental health counseling, parenting classes, psychological evaluation). A psychologist recommended dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) and parent-child therapy for Waldo’s personality disorder and interactional problems with S.M.M.
Department social workers referred Waldo to DBT programs, but initial Harborview placement found her ineligible; local DBT programs later accepted Medicaid but Waldo declined to transfer providers. She inconsistently participated in outpatient treatment and twice refused or failed to complete recommended inpatient treatment opportunities.
Multiple incidents occurred where Waldo appeared intoxicated or incapacitated while caring for S.M.M., including a 2015 parked-truck episode and a 2016 incident where she was slumped in her vehicle; S.M.M. reported feeling scared and described his mother as frequently drowsy.
The trial court found the department offered or provided necessary and reasonably available services (including DBT when available), that Waldo’s inconsistent participation made further services futile, and terminated her parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Waldo’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether department failed to provide all necessary and reasonably available services (esp. DBT) under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)	Department delayed DBT ~2 years; failed to procure funding or timely provide DBT so Waldo could progress before trial	When DBT became available in 2015 Waldo declined transfer; department referred and offered DBT and other services; further offers would have been futile given Waldo’s inconsistent participation	Affirmed: substantial evidence DBT was offered/provided or unavailable to be accessed earlier by Waldo; futility doctrine applies
Whether department should have required or sought court-ordered inpatient treatment earlier	Department should have asked court to compel inpatient treatment so Waldo could achieve sobriety sooner	Level-of-care is a medical determination; Waldo repeatedly denied a substance problem and refused inpatient offers; department repeatedly offered/urged inpatient treatment	Affirmed: department offered inpatient opportunities; it cannot force medical placement and Waldo refused or failed to engage
Whether services were tailored to co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (per S.J.)	Department failed to provide integrated services early enough to address co-occurring disorders	Department provided simultaneous mental health and substance abuse services throughout the proceedings	Affirmed: unlike S.J., services here were provided concurrently, not withheld pending sobriety
Whether continuation of parent-child relationship diminishes child’s prospects for timely permanency	Waldo argues more time/earlier DBT might have allowed reunification	Record shows repeated dangerous incidents, child’s fear, and low likelihood of remediation in near future due to noncompliance	Affirmed: termination appropriate and in child’s best interests

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (recognizing parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (2016) (service futility doctrine; department need not provide futile services)
In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689 (deference to factfinder on credibility and weight)
In re Parental Rights to S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873 (2011) (addressing need for services tailored to co-occurring disorders)
In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689 (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
In re Interest of J.F., 109 Wn. App. 718 (unchallenged findings treated as verities)
In re Dependency of A.M.M., 182 Wn. App. 776 (definition of "necessary services" needed for reunification)
In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181 (clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard)
In re Dependency of H.W., 92 Wn. App. 420 (explaining highly probable standard for clear and convincing evidence)