In re the Parental Rights to: P.L.F.

FILED
MARCH 15, 2018
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
)
) No. 35228-5-III
IN RE PARENTAL RIGHTS TO )
)
P.L.F. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
)
)
FEARING, C.J. — Nina Sargent appeals from the termination of parental rights to
her three-year-old son. We affirm the termination.
FACTS
This appeal concerns parental rights to the child, Patrick Ferris, whose parents are
Nina Sargent and Bartholomew Ferris, a Walla Walla couple. Only the mother
challenges the trial court’s termination of parental rights. Nina Sargent also bore three
other older children, Alexis and Paul Sargent and Allison Aguirre. All names are
pseudonyms.
The facts begin before Patrick Ferris’ birth. Due to domestic violence and Nina
Sargent’s use of methamphetamine, the Washington Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS) placed Alexis in foster care, on March 28, 2013, and filed a dependency
petition as to Alexis. DSHS also placed Paul and Allison in the care of their biological
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
father. From April through September 2013, Sargent and Bartholomew Ferris
participated in drug treatment, family and individual counseling, and Family Treatment
Court (FTC). Sargent then complied with drug treatment obligations. As a result, Alexis
returned to her parents’ care on November 13, 2013 with the condition that each parent
continue with services. Within a week, Paul and Allision also returned to Sargent’s care.
On December 27, 2013, Nina Sargent bore Patrick Ferris. Through February 1,
2014, Sargent complied with FTC rules and delivered clean urinalysis (UA) results.
Nevertheless, in early 2014, father Bartholomew Ferris violated court rules and tested
positive for marijuana.
Unfortunately, at some date between February and April 2014, Nina Sargent
relapsed with methamphetamine use. Between February and August 2014, law
enforcement responded to six domestic violence calls at the Sargent-Ferris home. In July
2014, the FTC discharged the parents from court participation due to continued domestic
violence.
On September 15, 2014 violence erupted again between Nina Sargent and
Bartholomew Ferris. Ferris threw a high chair. The wheel of the high chair scraped
Alexis’ foot and left a mark. Patrick, then nine months old, suffered mild injuries from
either the chair or some other force source.
In October 2014, DSHS removed all four children from the custody of Nina
Sargent and Bartholomew Ferris. Reasons for the removal included the parents’ drug
2
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
use, violence between Sargent and Bartholomew, a chaotic and unstable home, poor use
of financial resources resulting in the children’s hunger, and mental health concerns
about Sargent.
On November 24, 2014, the trial court entered a dependency for Patrick Ferris.
Patrick Ferris’ dependency order required Nina Sargent to: (1) participate in random
urinalysis testing, (2) not associate with persons who abuse unlawful substances and who
do not support a recovery lifestyle, (3) implement a recovery and relapse prevention plan
developed during her drug treatment, (4) obtain and maintain employment, (5) participate
in weekly counseling with Comprehensive Mental Health Services to address anxiety and
depression, (6) complete domestic violence treatment with Stan Woody, and (7) meet
with DSHS social worker Janel Torrescano a minimum of once a month. DSHS provided
Sargent gas money to travel from Walla Walla to the Tri-Cities to obtain domestic
violence treatment from Stan Woody.
Nina Sargent submitted to counseling from Alyssa Richards at Comprehensive
Mental Health Services in Walla Walla from October 2014 until the parental rights
termination trial in early 2017. Richards provided counseling sessions twice a month to
address Sargent’s anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Richards’
schedule did not permit the weekly sessions required in Patrick’s dependency order.
Nina Sargent made little progress in drug treatment through the summer of 2015.
During this time, Sargent participated in group community support meetings but failed to
3
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
complete homework. Nevertheless, Sargent passed methamphetamine urinalyses. She
tested positive for oxycodone use, but informed her social worker that she needed the
opioid for pain. Through the summer of 2015, Sargent participated in Early Head Start
classes. She acted appropriately during visitation with her children.
Nina Sargent ended her relationship with Bartholomew Ferris in the summer of
2015. Sargent last saw Ferris at a yard sale in August 2015.
Beginning in July 2015, Nina Sargent decreased her participation in court-ordered
services. Sargent missed visits with her children and skipped appointments with Serenity
Point, the drug treatment center. Sargent ceased attending domestic violence counseling
and missed a urinalysis. Sargent explained to social worker Janel Torrescano that she
suffered stress and anxiety resulting from work and attending domestic violence
treatment an hour away in the Tri-Cities. Torrescano offered to drive Sargent to the
treatment appointments if Sargent’s vehicle was inoperable. In January 2016, Stan
Woody terminated Sargent’s domestic violence treatment because of her many absences.
The trial to terminate Nina Sargent’s parental rights to daughter Alexis began in
October 2015 and finished in February 2016. The trial court terminated Sargent’s rights
to Alexis. The dependency for Patrick Ferris continued thereafter. On February 29,
2016, Sargent tested positive for methamphetamine.
Between March and April 2016, Nina Sargent completed a 21-day inpatient
detoxification program at Sundown M Ranch treatment center in Yakima. After finishing
4
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
inpatient treatment, Sargent underwent intensive outpatient treatment three days a week
for three hours per day at Serenity Point Counseling Services in Walla Walla. After
graduating from intensive outpatient treatment on July 5, 2016, she commenced a
traditional outpatient treatment program, by attending weekly group sessions and
individual sessions one to three times a month. Serenity Point counselors noticed
improvement in Sargent’s condition. Sargent assumed responsibility for her own actions
and talked positively. She successfully completed urinalyses.
Nina Sargent also reengaged in mental health services from Alyssa Richards at
Walla Walla’s Comprehensive Mental Health Services. Richards then described Sargent
as motivated and determined. Yet, Richards could only meet with Sargent twice a month.
DSHS social worker Janel Torrescano expressed concern about the infrequent meetings
and recommended that Sargent attend weekly sessions with a different therapist with
more availability. Sargent rejected the recommendation. Torrescano also offered
Sargent another counselor with experience in concurrent treatment of drug addiction and
mental health issues. Sargent again refused the offer.
Nina Sargent resumed domestic violence counseling with Stan Woody and
attended forty-two group counseling sessions. According to Woody, completing forty-
two sessions exhibited persistence. Woody also found that Sargent understood accepting
responsibility for her conduct, an understanding crucial to success. By August 2016,
Sargent’s condition had improved, but the living situation of children Paul Sargent and
5
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
Allison Aguirre had deteriorated. After temporary placement of the two older children
elsewhere, DSHS returned the children to Sargent on a temporary basis. After a brief
trial period, Sargent demonstrated she could work, participate in services, and care for the
two children, so DSHS reunified Paul and Allison with Sargent in September 2016 on a
permanent placement.
In October 2016, Nina Sargent’s life declined again. Janel Torrescano observed
that Sargent could not “function.” Report of Proceedings (RP) at 280. Sargent’s drug
treatment counselor, Andrea Dressler at Serenity Point, worried about Sargent’s behavior
in part due to Sargent’s use of hydrocodone and muscle relaxants for back pain. Sargent
missed visits with son Patrick Ferris, stopped attending domestic violence counseling,
ceased attending drug treatment sessions, and ended urinalyses.
Counselor Alyssa Richards observed a decline in Nina Sargent’s attitude that
Richards attributed to the pending termination trial for Patrick Ferris and the loss of
parental rights to Alexis Sargent. Richards noticed Sargent slept excessively, suffered
fatigue and lethargy, and sat on a couch instead of participating in services. Richards
recommended a mentally ill chemical abusers program that, as one previously offered to
Sargent, provided concurrent treatment for mental illness and substance abuse.
Unfortunately, Sargent could not access the concurrent treatment until after Patrick’s
termination trial. In December 2016, Serenity Point discharged Sargent from counseling
because of her refusal to engage in treatment. In the same month, Stan Woody dismissed
6
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
Sargent from group domestic violence treatment because of her absences. Patrick Ferris
turned three years old that December.
Due to a deterioration in Nina Sargent’s condition, DSHS provided intensive
family preservation services in the home. DSHS furnishes family preservation for four
weeks in order to prevent removal of children when removal looms imminent. DSHS
offered the services to prevent removal of Paul Sargent and Allison Aguirre, who
remained in the home of Nina Sargent. Sargent continued to refuse services through
January 2017.
PROCEDURE
Trial concerning termination of Nina Sargent’s and Bartholomew Ferris’ parental
rights to Patrick Ferris proceeded in February 2017. The trial court then heard testimony
from many expert witnesses concerning the condition and behavior of Sargent.
Patrick Flores, a certified chemical dependency professional at Serenity Point
where Nina Sargent attended drug treatment, testified to treatment needed by Sargent.
Flores opined that Sargent needs to complete drug treatment in order to parent. The
necessary treatment included another round of inpatient drug treatment followed by four
to six weeks of out-patient treatment. Flores did not know the length of necessary
inpatient treatment, but he noted that a second round of inpatient treatment usually takes
longer than the first round.
7
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
During trial, service providers testified that Nina Sargent needs cognitive
processing therapy to address her anxiety. This therapy needs pairing with addiction
therapy, and the combined therapy would last six months. Providers also testified that
Sargent needs intensive family therapy, a six to eight-month service.
During trial, DSHS social worker Janel Torrescano averred that Nina Sargent
could not remedy her parental deficiencies no matter the length of treatment. Torrescano
opined that Sargent cannot “maintain stability for any length of time.” RP at 289.
Torrescano distinguished Sargent’s ability to parent Patrick Ferris from her ability to
parent Paul Sargent and Allison Aguirre on the basis of the children’s respective ages.
Because Paul and Allison were respectively nine and ten years old, Torrescano deemed
the two older children capable of microwaving food if needed and approaching neighbors
for assistance. Torrescano testified that Nina Sargent’s neglect of care would place
Patrick at risk.
Margaret Buchan, the court-appointed special advocate for Patrick Ferris, also
differentiated the needs of Patrick from his siblings, Paul and Allison, due to age.
Patrick’s age of three rendered him vulnerable. Buchan concluded that Sargent could not
safely parent Patrick.
The trial court terminated the parental rights to Patrick Ferris in both Nina Sargent
and Bartholomew Ferris.
8
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, Nina Sargent assigns error to the trial court’s finding that the State
provided all necessary services, that her parental deficiencies could not be remedied in
the near future, and that she was an unfit parent. We discern no error.
In a termination of parental rights proceeding, the trial court holds broad discretion
to evaluate the evidence in the light of the rights and safety of the child. In re Welfare of
Siegfried, 42 Wn. App. 21, 27, 708 P.2d 402 (1985). We afford the trial court’s decision
great deference on review and we uphold the trial court’s findings of fact if supported by
substantial evidence. In re Dependency of K.S.C., 137 Wn.2d 918, 925, 976 P.2d 113(1999). Substantial evidence constitutes evidence in sufficient quantity to persuade a
fair-minded rational person of the truth of the declared premise. World Wide Video Inc.
v. City of Tukwila, 117 Wn.2d 382, 387, 816 P.2d 18 (1991). When we review the trial
court’s findings for substantial evidence, we examine the evidence in a light most
favorable to the party that prevailed below. In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 924
n.30, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010). We may not decide the credibility of witnesses or reweigh
the evidence. In re Dependency of A.V.D., 62 Wn. App. 562, 568, 815 P.2d 277 (1991).
Termination of parental rights is a two-step process. In re Welfare of C.B., 134
Wn. App. 942, 952, 143 P.3d 846 (2006). First, the State must establish six statutory
requirements under RCW 13.34.180(1) by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. RCW
13.34.190(1)(a)(i). Clear, cogent and convincing means highly probable. In re Welfare
9
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10, 24, 188 P.3d 510 (2008). Second, the State must show a
termination order serves the best interests of the child. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b).
We list all statutory elements before addressing whether the evidence supports
discrete elements. Before terminating a person’s right to parent his child, the State must
prove six parental inadequacy elements:
(a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order . . .
(c) That the child has been removed . . . from the custody of the
parent for a period of at least six months pursuant to a finding of
dependency;
(d) 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;
(e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so
that the child can be returned to the parent in the near future. . . .
(f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly
diminishes the child’s prospects for early integration into a stable and
permanent home. If the parent is incarcerated, the court shall consider
whether a parent maintains a meaningful role in his or her child’s life based
on factors identified in RCW 13.34.145(5)(b); whether the department or
supervising agency made reasonable efforts as defined in this chapter; and
whether particular barriers existed as described in RCW 13.34.145(5)(b)
including, but not limited to, delays or barriers experienced in keeping the
agency apprised of his or her location and in accessing visitation or other
meaningful contact with the child.
RCW 13.34.180(1).
Nina Sargent claims the State failed to demonstrate fulfillment of RCW
13.34.180(1)(d) and (e). In other words, Sargent challenges the trial court’s finding of
10
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
two of the six statutory elements. She contends that the State of Washington did not offer
or provide all reasonably available services and also argues that she can remedy any
barriers to reunification in the near future.
Nina Sargent describes her parental deficiencies as stemming from the stress and
anxiety resulting from the return of her two older children, maintaining a full-time job,
and complying with DSHS ordered services. Sargent further argues her inability to
manage stress and anxiety caused her withdrawal from necessary treatment. Since the
trial court conditioned parental fitness on the ability to complete treatment, Sargent
reasons that the stress and anxiety created a barrier to reunification. In turn, Sargent
faults DSHS for failing to afford lengthier family preservation services and dual
treatment for mental illness and substance abuse.
RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) demands that, before terminating parental rights, the court
find that “all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental
deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered
or provided.” Necessary services are those needed to address a condition that precludes
reunification of the parent and child. In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466,
480, 379 P.3d 75 (2016). The State’s burden in proving it offered all necessary services
requires proof that it offered services tailored to each individual’s needs. In re
Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 161, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001). The parent must have
the opportunity to benefit from all services available to address a barrier to family
11
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
reunification. In re Parental Rights to B.P., 186 Wn.2d 292, 316, 376 P.3d 350 (2016).
When DSHS offers the services, but the parent fails to take advantage of them, the State
satisfies the requirement of RCW 13.34.180(1)(d). In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn.
App. at 26 (2008).
The State of Washington introduced evidence that DSHS provided or offered Nina
Sargent all necessary services. DSHS provided mental health counseling, drug
counseling, and domestic violence counseling. Sargent argues DSHS did not afford her
services for anxiety and stress. Nevertheless, after the removal of Patrick Ferris from the
home, Alyssa Richards provided counseling for Sargent’s anxiety and stress.
Due to Alyssa Richards’ busy schedule, Richards could meet with Nina Sargent
only twice a month. Nevertheless, DSHS twice referred Sargent to a different counselor
that could meet more frequently. Each time Sargent refused the offer for the service she
now alleges as necessary. Offering of services suffices.
Nina Sargent next contends that DSHS failed to provide her dual treatment for
mental illness and substance abuse. Nevertheless, DSHS presented evidence that it
recommended Sargent treat with a dual provider, but Sargent again rejected the
recommendation.
Nina Sargent also argues DSHS should have afforded intensive family
preservation services sooner. In so arguing, Sargent misunderstands the nature of family
preservation services. The service does not send a provider to a home to teach the parent
12
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
how to cope with the responsibilities of daily life that includes having a job, children, and
maintaining a home. Family preservation services lasts four weeks and is designed to
prevent the removal of children when removal appears imminent. Patrick had already
been removed from the home. Thus, Sargent does not show family preservation services
to be a necessary service or even a viable option.
Nina Sargent cites In re Parental Rights to B.P., 186 Wn.2d 292 (2016) to support
her position on appeal. We find B.P. inapposite. In B.P., the mother successfully
remedied all parental deficiencies, but the State demanded termination of rights on the
theory that the child had not attached or bonded with the mother. DSHS failed to provide
available attachment services. Nina Sargent has not corrected all of her parental
deficiencies despite all the services DSHS offered or provided. Attachment services are
irrelevant.
Nina Sargent next contends that the trial court erred by finding that the State
proved little likelihood that she can remedy conditions that prevent the return of Patrick
Ferris in the near future. A presumption lies that the State fulfills this element of
termination if a parent fails to substantially improve deficiencies within twelve months
following entry of the dispositional order. In re Dependency of A.C., 123 Wn. App. 244,
249, 98 P.3d 89 (2004). According to court precedent, a determination of what
constitutes the near future depends on the age of the child. In re Welfare of Hall, 99
Wn.2d 842, 851, 664 P.2d 1245 (1983). One year has been held outside the near future
13
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
for both a three year old and a six year old. In re Dependency of A.C., 123 Wn. App. at
(2004); In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. at 164-65 (2001).
Nina Sargent must still complete drug treatment, individual counseling for anxiety,
stress, and addiction, and intensive family therapy. According to experts, the therapy,
treatment, and counseling would require at least twelve months. Patrick Ferris was three
years old at the time of trial. Other testimony established that Sargent could not remedy
her parental deficiencies no matter the amount of assistance.
The presumption that Nina Sargent will be unlikely to remedy her deficiencies
applies in this case. The trial court found Patrick Ferris dependent on November 24,
2014. Sargent progressed minimally in drug treatment in the winter of 2014-2015. From
November 2014 through April 2015, Sargent advanced little in following the court’s
order regarding treatment and services as a whole. Sargent inconsistently participated in
mental health counseling during this period. In January 2016, Stan Woody terminated
Sargent from domestic violence treatment because of undue appointment absences. On
February 29, 2016, Sargent tested positive for methamphetamine. Thus, by November
24, 2015 and beyond, Sargent failed to substantially improve her parental deficiencies.
Nina Sargent also assigns error to the trial court’s ultimate finding that she is
currently unfit to parent Patrick Ferris. Once the State proves the initial six statutory
elements by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, the trial court concentrates on
whether termination furthers the child’s best interests. In re Dependency of A.M.M., 182
14
No. 35228-5-III
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
Wn. App. 776, 784-85, 332 P.3d 500 (2014). The State must prove that termination is in
the best interests of the child by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Dependency of
A.M.M., 182 Wn. App. at 784-85.
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and
management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model
parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Santosky v. Kramer,
455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982). A parent has a due process
right not to have the State terminate his or her relationship with a natural child in the
absence of an express or implied finding that, at the time of trial, he or she is unfit to
parent the child. In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d at 918 (2010). As noted earlier, proof
of the six statutory elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) satisfies the due process requirement
that a parent be found currently unfit. In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 577,
257 P.3d 522 (2011).
The State of Washington proved the six statutory elements. This alone satisfies
the due process requirement of finding parental unfitness. In addition, multiple witnesses
testified at trial to their concerns regarding Nina Sargent’s ability to parent Patrick Ferris.
Margaret Buchan and Janel Torrescano both concluded that Sargent could not safely
parent Patrick. Sargent’s older children could care for themselves to some degree if
urgently necessary, but Patrick could not. Patrick would be at risk of neglect if returned
15
No. 35228-5-111
In re Parental Rights to P.L.F.
to his mother's care. Given the testimony and evidence presented, the trial court
committed no error when finding Sargent unfit to parent Patrick.
Nina Sargent finally assigns error to other findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Nevertheless, Sargent fails to argue, brief or support these assignments with citation to
authority. This court does not review errors alleged but not argued, briefed, or supported
with citation to authority. RAP 10.3; Valente v. Bailey, 74 Wn.2d 857, 858, 447 P.2d 589(1968).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's termination of Nina Sargent's parental rights to her son,
Patrick Ferris.
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.
WE CONCUR:
:?rtM{JuJ
doway,J. ~ I 2f
Pennell, J.
16