337 P.3d 1114
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- July 2011 dependency filed as to two children; mother (Maquel Ames) appeared and dependency was entered; fathers defaulted. Parenting deficiencies: substance abuse, mental health, inability to meet children’s needs.
- Court-ordered services (chemical dependency screening, UA/BA, mental health, parenting/therapy) were offered; mother participated sporadically, tested positive for methamphetamine, and largely failed to engage after mid-2012.
- Department filed a termination petition in October 2012; mother was personally served with the petition and a summons setting a December 6, 2012 hearing that warned failure to appear could lead to permanent termination.
- Mother did not appear at the December 6 hearing; Department moved for default and a default order was entered December 13, 2012. Mother later sought appointed counsel and moved to vacate the default (CR 55/CR 60), arguing lack of five‑day notice and due process violations.
- Trial court denied the motion to vacate (finding no excusable neglect, lack of diligence, and that vacating was not in the children’s best interests). A brief default termination hearing followed; the court entered findings and terminated parental rights. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Ames' Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother was entitled to 5‑day notice of the motion for default under CR 55(a)(3) | Her prior appearance and participation in the dependency proceeding constituted an appearance in the termination action, so she was entitled to notice | A termination proceeding is a separate action from the dependency proceeding; mother did not appear in the termination action and thus was not entitled to CR 55 notice | No notice required—termination is a separate proceeding and mother had not appeared in it, so CR 55(a)(3) did not apply |
| Whether entry of default termination without notice violated procedural due process | Default termination without proper notice denied mother meaningful process | Process was adequate: mother had prior statutory protections, services, notice of the termination petition and summons, and opportunity to move to vacate; default hearing included sworn testimony on statutory elements | Due process satisfied—statutory process plus meaningful default hearing minimized risk of error |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to vacate default (CR 55/CR 60) | Her failure to appear was excusable due to homelessness, confusion about the papers, and lack of counsel; she acted with reasonable diligence once aware | Mother showed neither excusable neglect nor due diligence (delayed contacting appointed counsel); court properly considered children’s interests and likely trial outcome | No abuse of discretion—mother failed to establish good cause, excusable neglect, or due diligence; denial affirmed |
| Adequacy of default hearing and findings to support termination by clear, convincing evidence | (Raised in dissent) The default hearing was perfunctory and testimony mainly tracked statutory language; findings were conclusory and insufficient for meaningful review | Majority did not address sufficiency on appeal (issues not raised by Ames); however, default hearing testimony and prior dependency record supported termination | Majority declined to reach sufficiency claims (not raised on appeal) and affirmed termination; dissent would have reversed for lack of adequate hearing/findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gage v. Boeing Co., 55 Wn. App. 157 (1989) (appearance in an administrative proceeding can constitute appearance in related court action for CR 55 notice purposes)
- In re Hiebert, 28 Wn. App. 905 (1981) (termination proceeding is a new, separate action distinct from dependency proceeding)
- In re Dependency of C.R.B., 62 Wn. App. 608 (1991) (default termination hearings require more than caseworker testimony parroting statutory language; findings must permit meaningful review)
- In re Dependency of A.G., 93 Wn. App. 268 (1998) (framework for balancing private interest, risk of error, and state interest in termination proceedings)
- In re Dependency of E.P., 136 Wn. App. 401 (2006) (default termination proceedings can satisfy due process when court conducts a meaningful hearing and makes detailed findings)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest requiring heightened procedural protections)