In the Matter of the Dependency of: O.R., B.W., O.S., & C.R. ( 2020 )

FILED
JULY 7, 2020
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
DEPENDENCY OF ) No. 36723-1-III
) (Consolidated with
O.R., ) No. 36724-0-III,
B.W., ) No. 36725-8-III,
O.S., ) No. 36726-6-III)
C.R. )
)
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
KORSMO, J. — Two parents appeal from the termination of their rights following a
30 month dependency. We affirm.
FACTS
There were four special needs children born to appellant K.R., the youngest of
whom (O.S.) was fathered by appellant K.S.1 Referrals to DSHS2 concerning the
1
The father of the other children relinquished his rights mid-trial and is not a party
to this appeal.
2
Department of Health and Human Services. DSHS changed its name in July 2018,
to the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. We refer to the agency as DSHS in
this opinion.
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
children began in 2014 and DSHS provided services to the family in 2015 and 2016. In
March 2016, the children were voluntarily removed from the mother’s care in order to
allow for house cleaning and to permit K.R. to seek mental health and medical treatment.
When K.R. failed to follow through, the children were removed the following
month through a shelter care order. A dependency order issued in August 2016. K.R.
was required to participate in UA/BAs with clean results for 30 days, complete a
parenting assessment, receive mental health treatment, engage in regular visits, and keep
in contact with social workers. K.S. was required to complete a chemical dependency
evaluation/treatment, take part in UA/BA testing with clean results for 30 days, complete
a psychological evaluation (DV assessment if recommended), complete a parenting
assessment, and keep in contact with DSHS.
At the six month planning review, the court determined that K.R. had provided a
few UA samples but had not undergone the chemical dependency assessment; she had
completed the psychological/mental health assessment but had not followed through on
recommended treatment, nor had she completed appropriate parenting training. K.S. had
completed the chemical dependency and psychological assessment with
recommendations for more services. His testing showed use of methamphetamine, but he
denied use of the substance, and he refused to attend further testing or engage in
2
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
treatment. He did complete the parenting assessment, but problems noted there went
untreated.
Although they attended most assessments, neither parent engaged in treatment,
leading DSHS in February 2018, to file termination petitions. The matter was tried over
six days beginning in early September and concluding in late October 2018, with the
court announcing its ruling terminating the parent-child relationships on November 9.
Written findings were entered and both K.R. and K.S. appealed to this court.
A panel considered the consolidated appeals without conducting argument.
ANALYSIS
Both parents argue that DSHS did not provide all necessary services.3 K.S.
contends that he successfully engaged in some services and would have succeeded at the
others. K.R. argues that additional services recommended by her evaluators should have
been offered to her. Neither contention is meritorious.4
3
Each also argues that the termination ruling was “premature” because necessary
services were not provided. In light of our contrary conclusion, we need not address this
derivative claim.
4
Each parent also assigns error to related findings of fact concerning services
offered. Their arguments do not explain why the evidence supporting the findings was
insufficient and, instead, simply assert the evidence supporting their view of the case.
The pro forma nature of these arguments does not require us to discuss the evidence
supporting the findings in any detail.
3
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
In order to terminate the parent-child relationship, the State must first establish the
six elements of RCW 13.34.180(1).5 These factors must be established by clear, cogent,
and convincing evidence. RCW 13.34.190(1)(a)(i). The trial court then must likewise
find by that same standard that the parent is currently unfit. In re Welfare of A.B., 168
Wash. 2d 908, 918, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010). “‘Clear, cogent, and convincing’ means highly
probable.” In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wash. App. 10, 24, 188 P.3d 510 (2008). The
trial court’s findings are entitled to great deference on review and those findings will be
upheld when supported by substantial evidence. In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wash. 2d
918, 925, 976 P.2d 113 (1999). Substantial evidence is that sufficient to persuade a fair-
minded, rational person of the truth of the evidence. World Wide Video, Inc. v. City of
Tukwila, 117 Wash. 2d 382, 387, 816 P.2d 18 (1991). “Because the trial court has the
opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the witnesses, its decision is entitled to
deference.” In re Welfare of S.J., 162 Wash. App. 873, 881, 256 P.3d 470 (2011).
5
The State must present evidence establishing that (1) the child has been found to
be dependent, (2) the court has entered a dispositional order, (3) the child has been
removed from the custody of the parent for at least six months, (4) all the necessary
services have been afforded to the parent to correct the parental deficiencies, (5) there is
little likelihood of remedying the parental deficiencies, and (6) continuation of the parent-
child relationship clearly diminishes the child’s prospects of permanent placement. RCW
13.34.180(1).
4
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
The fourth statutory factor is the one at issue in this appeal:
That the services ordered under RCW 13.34.136 have been expressly and
understandably offered or provided and all necessary services, reasonably
available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the
foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or
provided.
RCW 13.34.180(1)(d). A service is “necessary” if it is needed to address a condition that
precludes reunification of the parent and child. In re Welfare of C.S., 168 Wash. 2d 51, 56
n.3, 225 P.3d 953 (2010).
Because RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) limits the services required to those capable of
remedying parental deficiencies in the “foreseeable future,” a trial court can find that
DSHS offered all reasonable services where “the record establishes that the offer of
services would be futile.” M.R.H., 145 Wash. App. at 25. In addition, when a parent has
unique needs, DSHS must offer services tailored to meet those unique needs. In re
Welfare of Hall, 99 Wash. 2d 842, 850, 664 P.2d 1245 (1983). DSHS, “however, is not
required to offer services when a parent is unable to benefit from the services.” S.J., 162
Wash. App. at 881. The provision of services is futile where a parent is unwilling or unable
to participate in a reasonably available service that has been offered or provided. Matter
of K.M.M., 186 Wash. 2d 466, 483, 379 P.3d 75 (2016); In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93
Wash. 2d 689, 699 n.6, 611 P.2d 1245 (1980). Both of these types of “futility” are present
in this case.
5
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
K.S. argues that because he attended the assessments and a parenting class, but
was not offered additional informational classes suggested by the evaluators, he was not
provided all necessary services. None of those classes were required by the terms of the
dependency. More fundamentally, K.S. did not engage in the court-ordered treatment for
his chemical dependency. That service was a mandatory condition of the dependency
action. Chemical dependency and domestic violence were the deficiencies preventing
K.S. from parenting his child. His parenting skills were not at issue.
K.R. similarly argues that she was not provided all necessary services, pointing to
lack of in-home support and concurrent services. DSHS points out that in-home services
were not necessary (or even available) until K.R. was able to again care for the children
in her home. The other services were repeatedly offered to her, with the exception of a
parenting class that could not be attempted until K.R. sought mental health treatment that
would permit her to benefit from the class.
The trial court expressly found:
It would be futile to offer parenting education, which involves education of
basic hands on parenting skills to [K.S.] and [K.R.]. Neither of them have
taken advantage of the necessary services available to them to address their
chemical dependency and mental health issues. * * * [K.R.] admits that
she hasn’t completed her services, in fact she has demonstrated a complete
disengagement in services.
Clerk’s Papers at 651-652 (finding 5.38). Although both parents challenge the first
portion of this finding, the record amply supports it. The court found that both parents do
6
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
not even acknowledge or understand why the children were removed from their custody.
Id. at 651. It would be futile to offer any parenting service until the parents address the
mental health difficulties that impair their basic understanding of the circumstances. Nor
had they addressed the chemical dependency issues that were ruling their lives. Despite
numerous referrals for both types of services, K.R. simply disengaged. Similarly, K.S.
denied the existence of a methamphetamine problem and refused to engage in any related
services.
Additional parenting classes simply would not address the fundamental problems
facing the parents. Their respective refusals to enter into mental health treatment and
undertake chemical dependency treatment made additional services meaningless. And
their refusal to engage in those fundamentally necessary treatment programs, after several
years of efforts to encourage them to do so, meant that there was no reason to believe that
continuing the dependency was going to change the status quo. The parents were
standing still in place and were not making any effort to progress.
The trial court concluded that requiring additional services was a futile gesture
when the parents refused to engage in the treatment services mandated by the dependency
order. Further proceedings were useless. The trial court correctly determined both that it
was time to end the relationships and that it was in the best interest of the children to do
so.
7
No. 36723-1-III (Consol. with Nos. 36724-0-III, 36725-8-III, 36726-6-III)
In re Dep. of O.R., B.W., O.S., C.R.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________
Korsmo, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
Fearing, J.
_________________________________
Pennell, C.J.
8