In Re The Welfare Of D.m.m.
49710-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- KM is the mother of D.M.M., born Sept. 2014; child tested positive for opiates at birth and dependency was established Nov. 14, 2014. KM previously lost parental rights to four older children in 2013.
- Court-ordered services included random UAs, chemical dependency evaluation/treatment, psychological evaluation with parenting assessment, parenting education/coaching (PFR, Triple P, Incredible Years), mental health counseling, and DV support; KM repeatedly missed appointments and did not complete services.
- A termination petition was filed Oct. 22, 2015. The fact-finding hearing was originally set for Sept. 21, 2016, but testimony trailed to Sept. 26–28 and Oct. 3 as courtrooms became available. KM received written notice of the original date via counsel but was not present for any testimony.
- KM’s counsel received short notice (20 minutes) on Sept. 26 that proceedings would begin; counsel attempted to contact KM repeatedly by phone and e-mail but received little or no response. The Department’s case rested Sept. 28; court gave oral ruling Oct. 3. KM appeared Oct. 3 and requested to testify after the fact finding had concluded. The court denied reopening.
- The juvenile court found (inter alia) DSHS had offered or provided all necessary services, KM was unfit and unlikely to remedy deficiencies in the near future, and termination of KM’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of notice of trailing fact‑finding | KM: phone/e‑mail/20‑minute notice before start and trailing schedule were inadequate under due process (Mathews) and CR rules | DSHS: KM had written notice of original date; trailing under CR 40(a)(3) is authorized; phone/e‑mail reasonable and had worked for KM; KM failed to stay in contact | Court: No due process violation—trailing authorized by CR 40(a)(3); reasonable notice methods; KM’s failure to maintain contact caused absence |
| Denial of request to testify after hearing | KM: Appearing before oral ruling, she should have been allowed to testify; reopening would be minimally burdensome and answer facts (health/housing) | DSHS: KM had opportunity to be present; she failed to take reasonable steps to appear; reopening would impose delay/administrative burden | Court: No due process violation and no abuse of discretion—KM failed to take reasonable/timely steps; Mathews balancing favored finality/speed given scheduling difficulties |
| Whether DSHS provided/offered necessary services | KM: DSHS failed to tailor or offer services addressing HIV, homelessness, and medical needs; services therefore insufficient | DSHS: Offered multiple appropriate services; KM was unwilling/unable to use them; housing/HIV not shown to be primary barriers | Court: Substantial evidence supports finding DSHS offered/provided necessary services; even if some offers lacking, KM’s nonparticipation and foreseeable futility justify termination |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (parental rights as fundamental liberty interest)
- In re Welfare of L.R., 180 Wn. App. 717 (due process standards in termination context)
- In re Dependency of A.G., 93 Wn. App. 268 (Mathews application in dependency cases)
- Sego v. Putnam, 82 Wn.2d 736 (clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard)
- In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689 (deference to trial court in termination findings)
- In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129 (appellate review and credibility deference in dependency/termination proceedings)