In Re The Dependency Of: R.s.h.
82382-5
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2021Background
- R.S.H., a young child, was placed in foster care after dependency proceedings; his father M.A.H. was repeatedly incarcerated from 2017 through the January 2021 termination trial.
- The dependency court ordered remedial services for the father: substance-abuse evaluation/treatment, urinalysis, domestic-violence treatment, and a psychological evaluation with a parenting component (due to PTSD).
- The Department referred the father to Dr. Sierra Swing and later Dr. Steve Tutty for the psychological evaluation; Swing could not go to jail and Tutty could not enter the facility during COVID restrictions.
- Department social workers repeatedly encouraged the father to engage in services and sent service letters; contact was intermittent and the father acknowledged he never began the required services.
- The trial court terminated the father’s parental rights to R.S.H.; the father appealed solely arguing the Department failed to provide the court-ordered psychological evaluation with a parenting component.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department expressly and understandably offered or provided the court-ordered psychological evaluation (with parenting component) and other necessary services under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) | Father: The Department failed to provide the required psychological evaluation; termination must be reversed. | Department: It made referrals, repeatedly encouraged participation, and was blocked by the father’s incarceration, loss of contact, and COVID facility restrictions; father failed to engage in services when available. | Court affirmed: Department fulfilled its duty to offer services; father’s failure to engage and practical barriers (incarceration, pandemic) excuse further efforts; even if evaluation lacked, it likely would not have remedied deficiencies in the foreseeable future. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have a fundamental liberty interest in care, custody, and management of their children)
- In re Welfare of D.E., 196 Wn.2d 92 (Wash. 2020) (discusses parental liberty interest and standards in dependency/termination matters)
- In re Welfare of Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842 (Wash. 1983) (when suggesting services the Department must at least provide referral information)
- In re Parental Rights to D.H., 195 Wn.2d 710 (Wash. 2020) (Department fails its obligation when delay results in ultimately never providing a service)
- In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (termination may be appropriate where offered services would not have remedied parental deficiencies in the foreseeable future)