330 P.3d 195
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Father C.Q., born with severe cognitive impairments from childhood head trauma, has a good bond with daughter H.Q. but lacks capacity to parent independently. He has a legal guardian (Peck).
- H.Q. entered two dependency proceedings; reunification efforts included parent coaching that was ineffective for C.Q.; permanency plan shifted to adoption and the Department sought termination of C.Q.’s parental rights.
- C.Q.’s guardian and counsel sought to pursue voluntary relinquishment so C.Q. (through his guardian) could enter an open-communication adoption agreement to preserve contact with H.Q.; counsel represented C.Q. was not competent to relinquish.
- The juvenile court accepted counsel’s concession of incompetence without holding a competency hearing, found statutory grounds for involuntary termination, and terminated C.Q.’s parental rights.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the termination and remanded for a competency hearing, holding that substantive due process requires permitting a parent to pursue voluntary relinquishment as an alternative to involuntary termination when available.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (C.Q.) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parent has right to pursue voluntary relinquishment as alternative to involuntary termination | Parents have a fundamental liberty interest; due process requires opportunity to pursue statutory alternatives (voluntary relinquishment/open adoption). | Open-communication adoption unavailable in involuntary terminations; relief should be termination for permanency. | Court: Substantive due process protects the right to pursue voluntary relinquishment when it is a viable alternative. |
| Whether the juvenile court must hold a competency hearing before accepting concession of incompetence | Court must determine competence before foreclosing voluntary relinquishment; counsel/guardian cannot waive that right for an incompetent parent without a hearing. | The court and parties proceeded to trial on termination; counsel’s representation sufficed to proceed. | Court: Trial court erred by accepting counsel’s concession without a hearing; remand for competency hearing under RCW 26.33.070(1). |
| Whether counsel or guardian may waive a parent’s substantial rights by conceding incompetence | Waiver of a fundamental right requires the parent’s authorization; counsel/guardian may not waive substantial rights absent client authorization or court inquiry. | Counsel’s concession was procedural and appropriate to expedite proceedings. | Court: Attorney cannot waive substantial rights for client; juvenile court should have inquired whether C.Q. authorized the concession. |
| Remedy and next steps if parent found competent or incompetent | If competent: allow voluntary relinquishment process and possible open-communication adoption; if incompetent: explore alternatives (guardianship/permanency) while protecting parent–child bond. | Department prefers termination to secure legal permanence via adoption. | Court: Vacated termination; remanded for competency hearing and further proceedings consistent with competency finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (recognition of parents’ fundamental liberty interest in child-rearing)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (heightened due process protections before terminating parental rights)
- In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1 (parental autonomy and strict scrutiny for state interference)
- In re Welfare of R.H., 176 Wn. App. 419 (parents’ right to present alternatives at termination proceedings)
- In re Adoption of Infant Boy Crews, 60 Wn. App. 202 (distinguishing voluntary relinquishment from state-initiated termination)