In re the Parental Rights to M. I-S., 33924-6

DSHS filed to terminate K.I.'s parental rights to her three children after prior dependency determinations; termination trial set for Oct. 19, 2015.
K.I. had three court-appointed attorneys over the case timeline: initially Diana Anderson, then Craig Matheson, then Anderson again, and later Adrienne Farabee; two attorneys moved to withdraw citing lack of contact from K.I.
K.I. told the court she wanted a new attorney (and later tribal counsel) and at times had trouble contacting appointed counsel while jailed and close to trial.
The court granted the attorneys’ withdrawals and, after warnings about K.I.’s lack of contact, refused further appointment of counsel, directing trial to proceed as scheduled.
K.I. proceeded pro se at trial, failed to appear on the final day, and the court terminated her parental rights to all three children.
On appeal K.I. argued the trial court violated her statutory and constitutional right to counsel by refusing to appoint counsel for trial; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (K.I.)	Defendant's Argument (State/DSHS)	Held
Whether the trial court violated K.I.'s right to counsel by refusing to appoint counsel at trial after appointed attorneys withdrew	K.I. argued she did not voluntarily waive counsel and her limited failures to contact attorneys (partly due to jail and proximity to trial) were not so dilatory as to forfeit the right	The State argued K.I. waived or forfeited the right through dilatory conduct and failure to communicate, so the court permissibly declined further appointment	Court held K.I. did not waive or forfeit the right to counsel; the court erred in allowing trial to proceed pro se and reversed for a new trial

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parents have fundamental due process interest in custody)
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (discusses right to counsel in parental-termination context)
In re Dependency of V.R.R., 134 Wn. App. 573 (Washington law: statutory right to counsel in dependency/termination proceedings)
In re Dependency of E.P., 136 Wn. App. 401 (forfeiture of counsel where parent’s extended lack of contact justified withdrawal)
State ex rel. Schmitz v. Knight, 142 Wn. App. 291 (courts apply high threshold for forfeiture; pattern of referrals and continuances considered)
City of Tacoma v. Bishop, 82 Wn. App. 850 (explains waiver by conduct after adequate warning)
In re Welfare of G.E., 116 Wn. App. 326 (discusses voluntary relinquishment, waiver by conduct, and forfeiture doctrines)
In re Dependency of A.G., 93 Wn. App. 268 (upheld counsel withdrawal where mother was absent and uncontactable)
In re Dependency of Grove, 127 Wn.2d 221 (statutory protections for parents’ right to counsel in dependency matters)