In re the Parental Rights to: I.M.
34588-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- DSHS sought termination of C.J.'s parental rights to his daughter, I.M.; bench trial was held and the judge announced findings and judgment orally two days after trial.
- At the oral ruling the court found the statutory six elements proven by "clear, cogent, and convincing" evidence but then stated C.J. was unfit by a "preponderance" of the evidence; no party objected at that time.
- Parties submitted proposed written findings: DSHS's used the clear, cogent, and convincing standard; C.J.'s used preponderance. The judge signed written findings that applied the preponderance standard.
- DSHS moved for reconsideration under CR 59(a)(8), arguing the written findings mistakenly used the lower standard; the trial court agreed it erred as a matter of law and amended the written findings to state the clear, cogent, and convincing standard.
- C.J. appealed, arguing reconsideration was improper because DSHS failed to object "at the time" of the oral ruling; the Court of Appeals reviewed whether the trial court properly granted reconsideration and whether the correct standard was ultimately applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DSHS) | Defendant's Argument (C.J.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted reconsideration under CR 59(a)(8) to correct the written findings’ burden-of-proof after the oral ruling | DSHS: oral rulings are not final; the error became subject to objection only after written findings were entered, and DSHS preserved the issue by submitting correct proposed findings and promptly moving for reconsideration | C.J.: DSHS failed to object "at the time" to the court's oral misstatement, so it cannot rely on CR 59(a)(8) to seek reconsideration | Court: oral findings have no legal effect until reduced to written findings; DSHS timely objected to the written findings and reconsideration under CR 59(a)(8) was proper |
| Whether the trial court applied the proper standard (clear, cogent, and convincing) to the unfitness determination | DSHS: the court’s amended written findings reflect application of the correct standard and the evidence supports termination under that standard | C.J.: because no contemporaneous objection was made at oral ruling, the written findings using preponderance required a new trial under correct standard | Court: after reconsideration the court applied clear, cogent, and convincing standard; evidence supported termination, so no retrial required |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908 (clear, cogent, and convincing required for current unfitness determination)
- In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10 (definition: clear, cogent, and convincing means highly probable)
- In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568 (finding statutory elements by clear, cogent, and convincing implicitly finds unfitness by same standard)
- Ferree v. Doric, 62 Wn.2d 561 (oral judicial remarks not binding; written findings control)
- Rutter v. Rutter, 59 Wn.2d 781 (errors directed to oral findings are not proper assignments of error)
- Ramey v. Knorr, 130 Wn. App. 672 (standard of review for reconsideration based on error of law is de novo)