In Re The Dependency Of A.a.
82851-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2022Background
- A.A., born 2006, has spina bifida and substantial ongoing medical needs; Dolores Alexander (family friend) provided most care and A.A. lived with Alexander intermittently for about 10–11 years.
- Father D.A. had declining involvement, stipulated in 2017 he was not in a position to care for A.A., and was ordered to complete FCAP, a psychiatric evaluation, and limited visitation.
- Two FCAP assessments: 2017 (father participated; reunification not recommended), 2019 (father did not participate; FCAP recommended termination due to lack of engagement). Psychiatric evaluator recommended therapy/parenting classes but Department declined therapy as A.A. would not engage.
- A.A. was returned to Alexander in April 2019; contact with father after that was minimal (one video, one phone). Father did not engage in WISe services and did not appear at the May 2021 termination trial.
- The trial court found the Department proved the RCW 13.34.180(1) factors by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, found the father currently unfit, and concluded termination was in A.A.’s best interests; father appealed, arguing due process error and statutory defect under RCW 13.34.200(3).
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated due process by considering the child’s best interests when determining parental unfitness (mixing steps) | Trial court improperly mixed step-one (parental fitness) with step-two (child’s best interests) in violation of A.B. | Court permissibly considered placement stability when evaluating RCW 13.34.180(1)(f); trial court expressly found father unfit before best-interest analysis | Affirmed: No due process violation — court made the required findings of parental unfitness and consideration of placement stability is lawful under element (f) |
| Whether termination order is invalid for failing to address status of all sibling relationships per RCW 13.34.200(3) | Omission of findings about two alleged siblings required vacatur/remand of termination order | RCW 13.34.200(3) is a ministerial requirement; sibling-status is not an element needed to prove termination; court did find A.A.’s frequent contact with one sister (K.A.), satisfying the statute | Affirmed: No reversal needed — statute is ministerial; available findings about K.A. suffice given lack of trial evidence about other siblings |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in care and custody of their children)
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (Wash. 2010) (discusses required two-step process and impermissible blending of fitness and best-interests analysis)
- In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2011) (explains two-step statutory framework under RCW 13.34)
- In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466 (Wash. 2016) (trial court must find current parental unfitness before terminating rights)
- In re Parental Rights to J.B., 197 Wn. App. 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (element (f) implicates best-interests considerations when assessing whether the parent-child relationship diminishes prospects for permanency)
- In re Dependency of J.D.P., 17 Wn. App. 2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021) (RCW 13.34.200(3) is a ministerial requirement; sibling-status is not an element necessary to support termination)