In re the Welfare of S.J.
162 Wash. App. 873
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- TH appeals termination of parental rights to SJ and argues DSHS failed to timely provide mental health and bonding/attachment services.
- TH also contends her due process rights were violated because the trial court did not expressly find current parental unfitness, and such a finding cannot be inferred.
- SJ was born in 2002; SJ and his half-brother were removed in 2005 due to TH’s unsanitary living conditions and drug use, initiating dependency proceedings.
- TH was ordered to undergo a battery of services (substance abuse treatment, UA testing, psychological evaluation, mental health services, domestic violence program, parenting assessment, safe/drug-free housing).
- TH made progress, completed inpatient and outpatient treatment, and SBH/JH were born with SJ initially maintaining some bond, but SJ developed attachment to foster parents.
- DSHS ultimately failed to provide timely bonding-and-attachment services, and the trial court terminated TH’s rights based on findings that all necessary services were offered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether all necessary services were provided, including timely mental health and bonding-attachment services. | TH argues services were not timely or properly tailored to her co-occurring disorders. | DSHS contends services offered were adequate and tailored as required. | Court erred; services were not timely or adequately provided. |
| Whether bonding-and-attachment services were provided to TH and SJ. | TH contends bonding/attachment services were necessary and not provided. | DSHS maintains bonding-attachment services were not required or were subsumed by other programs. | Court erred; bonding-and-attachment services were not provided. |
| Whether the trial court’s termination rests on current evidence of TH’s fitness given due process requirements. | TH cannot have her rights terminated absent a current finding of unfitness. | DSHS asserts termination can rely on the statutory factors without a current fitness finding. | Remand required for explicit current-fitness findings; cannot infer unfitness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (fundamental parental rights require strong proof in termination cases)
- In re Welfare of A.J.R., 78 Wn. App. 222 (Wash. App. 1995) (two-step process; first step requires clear evidence of parental deficiencies)
- In re A.B., 168 Wn.2d 911 (Wash. 2010) (parsimonious reliance on current unfitness; explicit findings required)
- In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181 (Wash. App. 2005) (RCW 13.34.180(1) requires current parental unfitness; cannot infer)
- In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2011) (unfitness must be shown by clear, cogent evidence; due process concern)
- In re Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942 (Wash. App. 2006) (discusses substantial evidence standard and deference to trial court)