In Re The Dep Of Dmr., Cleve A. Goheen-rengo, App v. Dshs State Of Wa.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Dependency of ) No. 76721-6-1
) (consol. with Nos. 76722-4-1,
D.M.R., ) 76723-2-1, 76724-1-1,
DOB: 10/02/14, ) 76725-9-1, 76726-7-1)
)
M.G.R., )
DOB: 10/02/14, ) DIVISION ONE
)
U.C.R., ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
DOB: 11/28/13, -)
)
) FILED: March 5, 2018
)
APPELWICK, J. — Carey and Goheen-Rengo appeal orders terminating their
parental rights to U.R., M.R., and D.R. Carey contends the Department failed to
offer or provide all necessary and available services capable of correcting her
parental deficiencies. Goheen-Rengo contends the Department failed to prove
that there was little likelihood his parental deficiencies could be remedied in the
near future, that he was unfit to parent, and that termination was in the best
interests of the children. Substantial evidence supports the relevant findings. We
affirm.
FACTS
Erica Carey and Cleve Goheen-Rengo are the parents of four children:
U.R. (born 11/28/13), twins D.R. and M.R. (born 10/02/14), and J.E.C. (born
No. 76721-6-1/2
10/29/15).1 Since the couple met in 2013, police in several cities have repeatedly
responded to reports of domestic disputes at the couple's residences.
In October 2013, before U.R. was born, police in La Center, Washington,
responded three times in one evening to reported disturbances. An argument
between Carey and Goheen-Rengo's mother led to the mother's arrest. When
Carey later attempted to dial 911, Goheen-Rengo reportedly interrupted the call,
twisted Carey's wrists, and took the phone from her. Police arrested Goheen-
Rengo and removed him from the home.
In March 2014, La Center police responded to another dispute at the
couple's residence. Carey, who was pregnant with twins, was planning to move
to Bellingham and stay with Goheen-Rengo's father, but Goheen-Rengo would not
allow her to leave with U.R. After two visits from the police, Goheen-Rengo finally
allowed Carey to leave with the infant.
At the time of the twins' birth on October 2, 2014, Carey, Goheen-Rengo,
and U.R. were sharing a one bedroom apartment in Bellingham with Goheen-
Rengo's father. The twins were born at home without medical assistance. Carey
had only minimal prenatal care, and the parents did not seek any medical care
after the twins were born.
On October 6, 2014, Bellingham police responded to a call from Goheen-
Rengo's father about the family's welfare. Carey was "crying hysterically" and told
J.E.C. is involved in a separate dependency proceeding and is not part of
this appeal.
-2-
No. 76721-6-1/3
officers that she was struggling to care for and breastfeed the three children. The
police called paramedics, who checked the children and found no immediate
medical concerns.
A Department of Social and Health Services (Department) social worker
met with the family and developed a protective action plan. Carey agreed to
schedule a well-child appointment for the twins with a pediatrician and to arrange
a medical appointment for U.R., who had a deep red rash on his legs. Carey also
agreed to arrange for nutritional support services.
On October 9, 2014, Carey called the police for assistance in taking U.R. to
a medical appointment for his rash. Goheen-Rengo would not allow her to leave
the apartment with the children. Carey eventually arranged for transportation and
took the three children to a hospital. After an examination, Carey received an
antibiotic cream for U.R.'s rash and antibiotics for her urinary tract infection. Carey
later informed a Department social worker that she did not plan to use the
prescribed medication for herself or U.R. The physician also provided Carey with
formula to supplement the children's nutrition.
Carey and Goheen-Rengo opposed the Department's recommendations
regarding supplementation to breastfeeding. Although Carey made an appointment
for nutrition services, she did not keep the appointment.
On November 5, 2014, citing continuing concerns about the children's
medical condition, the reports of ongoing domestic disputes, and the parents'
ability to provide a safe and nurturing environment, the Department filed a
-3-
No. 76721-6-1/4
dependency petition and removed the children from the parents' home. Naomi
Rodriguez, the Department social worker, arranged voluntary services for the
parents, including domestic violence services and parenting education through
Francie Gass, a public health nurse. In January 2015, Carey informed Rodriguez
that Gass had been providing "outdated information." Carey found participation in
the services pointless because she "knew all she needed to know."
Dr. Rowena Pusateri, a pediatrician, examined the twins when they were
about six weeks old. Dr. Pusateri diagnosed a failure to thrive, noting the twins
were below the third percentile on the weight chart. The parents' expert witness,
a licensed midwife, disagreed with Dr. Pusateri's analysis and maintained that the
twins were not underweight.
It is undisputed that at the time of the termination trial, all three children had
special needs. U.R. requires treatment for anxiety and eczema. M.R. was
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. She also has social deficits and speech
delay. D.R. experienced developmental delays as a result of esophageal reflux.
He has a sensory processing disorder and a significant hearing loss.
On December 5, 2014, after a lengthy shelter care hearing, the trial court
returned the children to the parents. Among other things, the court ordered both
parents to obtain mental health services and a psychological evaluation with a
parenting component. The court ordered Carey to participate in the Women,
Infants, and Children nutrition program, and in domestic violence victim's services.
Goheen-Rengo agreed to resolve his existing bench warrants and complete a
-4-
No. 76721-6-1/5
domestic violence perpetrators evaluation. Carey and Goheen-Rengo also agreed
to allow a visiting nurse to monitor the children's weights.
The Department provided both parents with information on how to obtain
and schedule the court ordered services. But, in the weeks following the shelter
care hearing, the parents failed to schedule appointments or missed scheduled
appointments. Angela Paull, a Department social worker, scheduled most of the
children's medical appointments.
A few weeks after the shelter care hearing, Carey told the children's
guardian ad litem (GAL) that Goheen-Rengo had a gun and that she did not feel
safe in the family home with Goheen-Rengo and his mother. After the police
arrived, Carey and the children left the home and spent the night in a hotel. Carey
and the children returned to the family home on the following morning.
When Carey and Goheen-Rengo failed to engage in any of the court
ordered mental health or domestic violence services, the Department attempted to
modify the placement. The Department asked the court to place the children with
Carey, on condition that she not reside with Goheen-Rengo or his family. In the
alternative, the Department asked the court to place the children in foster care. On
January 6, 2015, the court denied the motion, but conditioned continued placement
with the parents on their full compliance with the court ordered services.
A few weeks later, concerned about ongoing reports of domestic violence
in the family, the Department filed a second motion to remove the children. But,
before the court could rule on the motion, Carey and Goheen-Rengo fled with the
-5-
No. 76721-6-1/6
children to California. While in California, the children's GAL received a text
message from the parents, asserting that "we are not going to be kissing you all's
ass anymore, baby stealers. You CPS whores can stop trying to separate us."
The California Highway Patrol stopped the family in Santa Cruz County and
arrested Carey and Goheen-Rengo. Carey head-butted and kicked the arresting
officer and was later charged with resisting arrest. The Department placed the
children in foster care when they returned to Washington.
On February 27, 2015, after a contested fact-finding hearing, the trial court
found all three children dependent under RCW 13.34.030(6)(b) (child abused or
neglected) and .030(6)(c)(no parent or guardian capable of adequately caring for
the child). The court rejected the parents' denial of any history of domestic violence
as not credible. The court expressly found that Carey was "the victim of recurrent
domestic violence perpetrated on her by [Goheen-Rengo]" and that the children
had been exposed to Goheen-Rengo's domestic violence.
The court found both Carey and Goheen-Rengo had mental health issues
that affected their ability to parent, in particular their ability to remain alert to their
children's needs and physical safety:
18. The parents both are deficient in that they have a lack of
insight and poor judgment that impairs their ability to safely
parent and meet the needs of their children. They remain
unable, without the intervention and direction of others, to
recognize threats to the safety of their child[ren].
The court ordered both parents to complete previously ordered domestic violence
assessments and parenting instruction, mental health assessments, and
-6-
No. 76721-6-1/7
psychological evaluations with a parenting component, and follow recommended
treatments.
Both Carey and Goheen-Rengo completed court ordered psychological
evaluations with Jason Prinster, PhD, in April 2015. During his evaluation,
Goheen-Rengo described himself as "a high functioning person" who had no
significant problems parenting his children. He denied committing any acts of
domestic violence and denied any personal responsibility for his conflicts with the
courts and the Department.
Prinster found that Goheen-Rengo had no prominent emotional or
psychiatric disorder. But, he expressed concern about Goheen-Rengo's antisocial
personality traits, criminal history, law enforcement contacts, and his expressions
of anger and hostility toward others and apparent underlying anger and
aggression. Prinster also found that these concerns, as well as Goheen-Rengo's
"pattern of irresponsibility," including the ongoing failure to support himself
financially or find stable housing and an inability to accept personal responsibility
or acknowledge any need for change, were risk factors associated with domestic
violence and child abuse.
As part of the parenting assessment, Prinster observed Goheen-Rengo's
visit with the children, which he characterized as "warm and attentive." But,
Goheen-Rengo became obviously frustrated and upset by the end of session
about some dietary restrictions for one of the children. Goheen-Rengo directed
some of his frustration at the supervising social worker.
-7-
No. 76721-6-1/8
Prinster concluded that based on a number of significant risk factors,
Goheen-Rengo had a "guarded" prognosis for being able to properly parent his
children in the next 12 months.
During her evaluation, Carey denied any history of domestic violence in her
relationship with Goheen-Rengo and disputed all of her statements to the contrary.
Carey acknowledged having some difficulties in the past, but denied having any
significant emotional problems or psychiatric distress. Carey reported that she had
separated from Goheen-Rengo but suggested that the Department's interference
had caused the separation. Carey's cognitive test results were in the normal
range. During the parenting observation, Prinster found Carey's interaction with
the children to be pleasant and positive.
Among other things, Carey claimed that the Department was using her
children for "some type of baby formula experiment" and informed Prinster of her
ability to communicate with her children through clairvoyance. Prinster found these
"unusual beliefs" were not "prominent enough" to warrant a specific diagnosis, but
characterized them as "kind of rigid, inflexible. . . uncommon beliefs."
Prinster found that contrary to Carey's denial, the evidence of her continued
involvement in a violent relationship, as well as her acknowledged refusal to seek
out medical care for her children, posed a risk to the safety of the children. Prinster
concluded that Carey had a "guarded or unclear" prognosis for an ability to change
behaviors within a reasonable time.
-8-
No. 76721-6-1/9
In April 2015, Carey began mental health counseling with Dr. Jayme
Fergoda, a licensed clinical social worker with a doctoral degree in clinical
psychology. Dr. Fergoda's treatment plan addressed a number of topics, including
depression and anxiety, self-care, and follow through with medical appointments.
Carey attended 8 of 14 scheduled sessions.
In September 2015, Carey left the state without notice to the Department
and settled in Utah, where she gave birth to J.E.C. Carey began seeing Tracy
Stevens, a mental health therapist, who diagnosed adjustment disorder with
anxiety and depression.
After eventually learning that Carey was in Utah, Department social workers
remained in contact with both Carey and Stevens. The Department arranged for
Carey to participate in Skype visits with the children. But, the Department
discontinued the visits after Carey repeatedly shouted obscenities and threats at
the social workers.
Carey participated in a total of 22 sessions with Stevens. Stevens noticed
that during the last few sessions, Carey seemed unable to engage fully in therapy
and exhibited signs of disassociation and mania. Among other things, Carey
claimed that she was Wonder Woman, that she had been various celebrities in
past lives, and that Goheen-Rengo was having affairs with Department social
workers.
Stevens believed that Carey's mental state deteriorated shortly after
Goheen-Rengo visited Carey in Utah, over Carey's objections. Stevens planned
-9-
No. 76721-6-1/10
to recommend that Carey consider an evaluation for antipsychotic medication, but
Carey ended the sessions and left Utah before Stevens could discuss the matter
with her.
Carey returned to Bellingham in the summer of 2016 and resumed
treatment with Dr. Fergoda. Fergoda also believed that Carey needed an
assessment for antipsychotic medication, but both the Department social workers
and Fergoda encountered difficulties in persuading Carey to seek the appropriate
evaluation. Carey missed numerous scheduled sessions with Fergoda and
eventually stopped participating altogether. Fergoda was unable to schedule any
appointments with Carey after December 2016.
Goheen-Rengo participated in various services, including parenting and
nutrition services with Gass. Goheen-Rengo started, but did not complete, the
Incredible Years parenting program. Goheen-Rengo completed anger
management and domestic violence counseling sessions with Donald Steal in July
2016.
In May 2016, after several months, Goheen-Rengo stopped attending
mental health counseling sessions with Deb Sawyer, claiming that he could no
longer afford the insurance co-payment. When Sawyer refused to contract with
the Department for further services, the Department social worker referred
Goheen-Rengo to a new mental health counselor. Goheen-Rengo did not pursue
the referral for additional sessions.
The Department filed termination petitions on March 18, 2016.
-10-
No. 76721-6-1/11
In June 2016, shortly before he completed his counseling sessions with
Staal, Goheen-Rengo participated in a supervised visit with his children. At the
time, the Department had moved Goheen-Rengo's visits to the courthouse so that
he would have to go through a metal detector.
At the conclusion of the visit, Goheen-Rengo became upset. He then
placed his foot in the elevator door to prevent the supervising social workers and
children from leaving. When one of the social workers began to call the police,
Goheen-Rengo removed his foot and allowed the elevator door to close. Goheen-
Rengo then began shouting profanities at the social workers. As a result of the
outburst, Goheen-Rengo was later convicted of two counts of unlawful
imprisonment.
Goheen-Rengo participated in a second psychological evaluation and
parenting assessment with Dr. Prinster in July 2016. During the interview,
Goheen-Rengo continued to deny having any emotional difficulties and refused to
accept any responsibility for his difficulties with the Department. Goheen-Rengo
informed Prinster that he had completed all recommended services.
During the parenting observation, which occurred in Prinsters office,
Goheen-Rengo had difficulty monitoring and managing the three toddlers. Part
way through the observation, Goheen-Rengo became increasingly frustrated while
attempting to change M.R.'s diaper. At one point, he abruptly told the visit
supervisor that he had seen bruises on M.R.'s legs and claimed that"my daughter
-11-
No. 76721-6-1/12
is being abused, what are you going to do about this." Without waiting for a
resolution, Goheen-Rengo called 911 and reported the alleged abuse.
At this point, the visit supervisor and social worker Paull told Goheen-Rengo
that the observation was over and attempted to leave with the children, who were
visibly upset. Goheen-Rengo became increasingly agitated and stood outside the
office door, asserting that no one was leaving until the police arrived. Goheen-
Rengo left once the police arrived and did not return to finish the evaluation.
Prinster concluded that not much had changed in the year since Goheen-
Rengo's first evaluation. Despite participation in services, Goheen-Rengo
continued to exhibit significant anger management issues that created risks for the
children. Nor had he made progress in securing stable employment and housing.
Prinster believed that dialectical behavior therapy might be beneficial for Goheen-
Rengo if he were motivated. But, because Goheen-Rengo "was clear that he did
not feel that he.. . needed any further treatment," Prinster believed that a referral
would not have been appropriate.
In October 2016, the children's GAL asked the court to appoint a GAL for
Carey, because of concerns about Carey's competence. After a hearing on
October 26, 2016,the court granted the motion. Stacy Ziegler, the children's GAL,
testified that Carey had been evaluated at Western State Hospital and diagnosed
with bipolar disorder. The evaluation recommended medication for treatment.
Prinster began a second evaluation of Carey in December 2016. But,
Carey's obviously deteriorated mental state prevented her from participating in a
-12-
No. 76721-6-1/13
full evaluation or a parenting assessment. Among other things, Carey claimed that
she was assisting a federal investigation into the Department's trafficking of
children. She also informed Prinster that a prominent actor was the father of her
youngest child and that she was currently playing music with Eric Clapton, the Red
Hot Chili Peppers, and Metallica.
Prinster's primary concern was that Carey's delusional and grandiose
beliefs, coupled with her rigidity in thinking, refusal to recognize any need for
assistance, including medical advice, in the care of her children, and her rejection
of most services, compromised her ability "to make rational informed decisions"
and posed significant risks to the safety of both Carey and her children.
Prinster concluded that Carey's short term prognosis for improvement was
poor. He recommended that she participate in a medication assessment for her
condition, but acknowledged that she would first have to be willing to meet with a
psychiatrist. Prinster testified that absent extraordinary circumstances, "we have
no way of compelling" involuntary medication.
After a 12 day trial in February 2017,the trial court granted the Department's
petitions and terminated both Carey's and Goheen-Rengo's parental rights to all
three children. The court found that despite the provision of numerous services
over the course of two years, neither parent had made any meaningful progress in
correcting the identified parenting deficiencies. Both parents steadfastly refused
to acknowledge any parenting deficiencies or the need for services to address
those deficiencies. The court found that under the circumstances, there was little
-13-
No. 76721-6-1/14
likelihood that either parent could remedy the deficiencies in the foreseeable
future.
The termination order included the following findings of fact:
[2.11(A)(6)] The mother has been afforded many opportunities to
understand the need for her to engage in services; she has been
notified regarding them repeatedly and they have been expressly
and understandably offered or provided. In addition to the mother's
active participation in the dependency contested fact-finding, and the
dependency court's entry of a dispositional order which set forth the
initial service requirements, the mother also was made aware of the
need for services following the shelter care hearing in December
2014. The Department has provided the mother with numerous
letters explaining her need for services and how to engage in them.
Finally, Department social workers and the guardians ad !item have
also had many conversations with the mother detailing her services.
The court has also ordered the mother to engage in services, and
she has signed some of the court orders acknowledging her
obligations. However,the mother has adopted a belief that this court
lacks authority, that a higher court will overrule this court's
determinations, and that therefore, it is unnecessary to follow the
court's orders. Despite the frequent communication with the mother
regarding services, the mother's engagement in services has been
sporadic and, to the extent she has engaged, have not resulted in
any appreciable improvement in her capacity to parent the child; in
fact, the mother's ability to safely and capably care for the child
appears worse today than it did at the outset of the case.
[2.11(B)(2)] Although the father adamantly denies it, he has a long
history of domestic violence abuse involving the mother. There have
been numerous law enforcement contacts involving domestic
disputes in the family home and social workers and the previous
guardian ad litem have witnessed the father interacting with the
mother in a manner that strongly suggests coercive control. The
mother has also reported to numerous parties, the guardians ad
litem, social workers, and her service providers that at various times
she has felt threatened or unsafe in the father's presence, on at least
two occasions leaving the family home.. . . At trial, the father testified
that Mr. Staal only aske[d] once whether the father believed he was
a perpetrator of domestic violence. The father testified that he denied
-14-
No. 76721-6-1/15
it to Mr. Staal, and that Mr. Staal never asked about it again. Mr.
Staal, by comparison, testified that that he could not recall if he had
specifically asked the father this question, and that, despite a "mass
of documents" provided by the Department, did not believe the father
to be a domestic violence abuser. Therefore, Mr. Staal provided
services to address the father's anger management. It is notable
that, several months into treatment with Mr. Staal, the father traveled
to see the mother in Utah in or about late February 2016, apparently
against her wishes, and was reported by the mother to have forced
his way into her room and then refused to leave. Although Mr. Staal
originally recommended 30 to 50 sessions, to address anger
management, he graduated the father after 30 sessions, determining
that the father did not require further anger management. It is
remarkable that, contemporaneous to the conclusion of services with
Mr. Staal, the father, apparently unable to control his anger, trapped
two social workers in a courthouse elevator. Later in the summer of
2016,the father again had an angry dispute about his children during
a parent-child observation for an updated psychological evaluation
where he again blocked the social workers' egress, and also broke
into the mother's home through a window after she returned to
Bellingham. The father was charged with two counts of unlawful
imprisonment involving the social workers, for which he was
convicted following a jury trial in December 2016. Whether Mr. Staal
misdiagnosed the father's needs for treatment is not relevant by
comparison to the father's own testimony, which demonstrates his
denial regarding domestic violence and his consequent endorsement
that he requires no treatment for it. To the extent he received
treatment from Mr. Staal for anger management, it was not effective
given his numerous angry outbursts since anger management
treatment concluded, including several involving impulsive behavior
that was threatening or disturbing to the peace of others. At trial, the
father continued to displace the importance of recognizing the extent
of his responsibility for controlling his behavior: When asked whether
he has any anger management problem, he dismissed it by stating
that everyone does. Further, the father's anger management issues
were evident to this court during the trial, as evidenced by this court's
repeated interventions with the father. The court had to interrupt his
testimony several times when he began yelling at attorneys during
questioning. During his testimony, he continued to engage in a
belligerent and threatening manner stating, for example, "You
[referring to the social workers, attorneys and others in the
courtroom]should all be in a box in the desert." During his testimony,
in response to questions about whether he behaved in an
intimidating manner during the case and whether he'd attempted to
bring knives into the courthouse, he stated "The fact that 1 have a
-15-
No. 76721-6-1/16
gun and tried to bring 3 knives into the courthouse makes me seem
pretty scary, doesn't it?" As Dr. Prinster opined in his second
psychological evaluation, it does not appear that the father is
amenable to any interventions at this time. Domestic violence, if
perpetrated by the father in the presence of the child, places the child
at risk. This can include either physical injury or psychological or
emotional injury.
[2.11(3)(3)] The father received significant parenting education
through the services of a public health nurse. Parenting education
began shortly after the Department became involved with the family
in October 2014. The public health nurse met with the father on
numerous occasions, both when the child was placed in the family
home, and during and after removal. The consistent theme
throughout the course of the dependency involved the father's
resistance accepting feedback and advice regarding his parenting,
even to the point of repeatedly ignoring recommendations regarding
how to safely feed the children and engage with them in play. The
father made little progress in addressing his parenting deficits which
include a lack of insight into the special needs of the children. In
addition to the public health nurse, the father was also referred to a
separate parenting program called Incredible Years. However, he
failed to participate in sufficient classes and ultimately dropped out
of the program. During visits, the father continued to demonstrate
his deficiencies at parenting, failing to adopt or demonstrate having
learned safe feeding techniques or bringing age-appropriate toys for
the child. He also was unable to maintain consistent supervision of
all of the children without substantial support by other family
members or visit supervisors. He regularly engaged in inappropriate
conversation with or around the child about such things the child
coming home, using menacing speech directed at visit supervisors,
and having angry, impulsive outbursts. His last visit with the child
ended when he continued to violate visit rules, and then trapped the
social workers in the elevator while berating them with obscenities.
It is apparent that the father has not improved even marginally his
ability to safely and capably parent the child despite the ample
opportunity afforded him through the parenting education he was
provided.[2]
Carey and Goheen-Rengo appeal.
2 For purposes of this appeal, the court's findings for each child were
essentially identical.
-16-
No. 76721-6-1/17
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
Parents have fundamental liberty and privacy interests in the care and
custody of their children. In re Welfare of A.J.R., 78 Wn. App. 222, 229, 896 P.2d
1298 (1995); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed.
2d 599 (1982).
Before terminating parental rights, Washington courts must follow a two-
step process. First, the State must prove the six statutory elements of RCW
13.34.180(1) by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.
(a) That the child has been found to be a dependent child;
(b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuant
to RCW 13.34.130;
(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.[;and]
(f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship
clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a
stable and permanent home.
-17-
No. 76721-6-1/18
Clear, cogent and convincing evidence exists when the evidence shows the
ultimate fact at issue to be highly probable. In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d
129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995).
Second, if the State proves the six termination factors, the court then
determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, if termination is in the child's best
interests. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b); In re Welfare of A.B. 168 Wn.2d 908, 911, 232
P.3d 1104 (2010).
We necessarily defer to the trier of fact on issues of conflicting testimony,
credibility of witnesses, and the persuasiveness of the evidence. State v.
Camarillo, 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990). Our deference is particularly
important in proceedings affecting the parent and child relationship because of"the
trial judge's advantage in having the witnesses before him or her." In re Welfare
of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 711, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015).
II. Mother's Appeal
Carey challenges the finding that the Department offered or provided all
reasonably available services capable of correcting her parental deficiencies within
the foreseeable future. See RCW 13.34.180(1)(d). In order to satisfy this
requirement, the Department must prove it offered services specifically tailored to
the individual's needs. In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 161, 29 P.3d
1275 (2001). A protracted delay in identifying and offering necessary services
where parents have not resisted or refused services may undermine a finding that
the Department offered or provided all necessary services under RCW
-18-
No. 76721-6-1/19
13.34.180(1)(d). In re Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181, 198-203, 108
P.3d 156 (2005).
Carey contends the Department became aware of her mental health issues
early in the dependency and that no later than February 2016, a year before the
termination trial, the Department knew from her Utah therapist that she was
becoming increasingly delusional. She argues that the Department should have
offered her referrals for a psychiatric evaluation or medication management
consultation. Carey acknowledges there was evidence she would have resisted
such a referral, but asserts that had the Department attempted to persuade her
through people she trusted, she likely would have engaged in the services and
made significant progress by the time of the termination trial. The record fails to
support these arguments.
The Department initially assisted Carey in obtaining mental health
counseling with Dr. Fergoda. But, Carey's participation in the sessions was
inconsistent, and she left the state in September 2015. Carey eventually resumed
mental health counseling in Utah with Stevens, who consulted regularly with
Department social workers. When Carey became increasingly delusional, Stevens
planned to refer her for medication management, but Carey returned to
Washington before Stevens could discuss the plan with her.
Carey resumed sessions with Dr. Fergoda in July 2016. But, Fergoda was
extremely cautious about attempting to refer Carey for psychiatric services or a
medication evaluation because of Carey's trust issues. Fergoda successfully
-19-
No. 76721-6-1/20
encouraged Carey to provide a release for Dr. Prinster's second evaluation.
Fergoda also persuaded Carey to try an antidepressant drug through Carey's
primary care physician. But, Carey did not believe the medication was effective
and eventually stopped using it. Fergoda was unable to schedule any
appointments with Carey after December 21, 2016.
Social worker Rodriguez testified that simply providing Carey with a referral
for a psychiatric consultation would not have been effective. Rather Rodriguez
discussed the matter with Carey and encouraged her to accept the service. But,
Carey refused the offer. After Dr. Prinster's second evaluation, social worker
Skinner attempted to find a psychiatric services provider who would be acceptable
to Carey. Skinner repeatedly asked Carey for a release so that she could arrange
a referral, but Carey never responded.
According to Carey, Dr. Fergoda believed Carey would have participated in
psychiatric services if the Department had referred her. But, Fergoda testified only
that "[i]t is possible that she would have gone." Carey asserts that if the
Department had worked through one of the people that she obviously trusted,
including Fergoda, she likely would have participated. But, after December 21,
2016, Dr. Fergoda was unsuccessful in arranging for Carey to attend her own
counseling sessions.
Although the Department social workers did not provide Carey with a
specific referral for a psychiatric or medication consultation, it made repeated
efforts to persuade Carey to accept such services. Carey rejected all these
-20-
No. 76721-6-1/21
attempts. Given the nature of Carey's mental health issues, the Department's
approach and efforts were reasonable. In addition, Carey's trial testimony clearly
reinforced her unwillingness to participate in possible psychiatric or medication
services. "[A] parent's unwillingness or inability to make use of the services
provided excuses the state from offering extra services that might have been
helpful." In re Dependency of Ramquist, 52 Wn. App. 854, 861, 765 P.2d 30(1988). Substantial evidence supports the finding that the Department offered or
provided Carey all necessary services under RCW 13.34.180(1)(d).
III. Father's Appeal
A. Likelihood of Reunification
On appeal, Goheen-Rengo concedes the Department established the
statutory elements in RCW 13.34.180(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) by clear, cogent,
and convincing evidence. He contends, however, that the Department failed to
prove there was "little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child
can be returned to the parent in the near future." RCW 13.34.180(1)(e). Goheen-
Rengo claims that he willingly participated in, and successfully completed, the
court ordered services, including anger management counseling, parenting
services, and psychotherapy sessions. He also points to favorable testimony
about his visits with the children. He argues that the evidence was therefore
insufficient to establish that his parental deficiencies would not likely be remedied
in the near future. We disagree.
-21-
No. 76721-6-1/22
Gass provided parenting services to Goheen-Rengo for about one year.
Her services were designed to focus Goheen-Rengo's attention on issues
involving the children's safety and to develop skills for responding to the children's
special needs. But, Gass found that Goheen-Rengo was only "occasionally"
receptive to her assistance. She testified that at the conclusion of the services,
Goheen-Rengo had not improved his ability to parent and that he needed
additional services. Goheen-Rengo began the Incredible Years parenting
program, but dropped out after three sessions because he felt the class was
neither appropriate nor beneficial.
The Department referred Goheen-Rengo to Staal for domestic violence and
anger management services. Staal did not believe the evidence of domestic
violence. He therefore provided Goheen-Rengo with services for only anger
management and found• that Goheen-Rengo successfully completed those
services after 30 sessions. But, substantial evidence supports the trial court's
finding that Staal's anger management services were not successful.
As the trial court noted, Goheen-Rengo's angry outbursts and hostile
behavior continued despite Staal's services. In June 2016, shortly before he
completed the sessions with Staal, Goheen-Rengo became upset during a visit
with his children and prevented the social workers and children from leaving. The
incident resulted in Goheen-Rengo's conviction for two counts of false
imprisonment. In July 2016, Goheen-Rengo's angry outbursts prevented him from
completing the parenting observation during Dr. Prinster's second evaluation.
-22-
No. 76721-6-1/23
Despite Goheen-Rengo's repeated denials, substantial evidence also
supports the trial court's finding that he had a lengthy history of domestic violence
that required treatment. He argues that the trial court improperly relied on Carey's
accounts of the alleged domestic violence because she was suffering from a
severe delusional disorder. But, many of Carey's reports occurred before her
condition deteriorated. Moreover, social workers and law enforcement personnel
were able to corroborate significant portions of Carey's accounts.
What constitutes the near future depends on the age of the child and the
circumstances of the child's placement. In re Welfare of C.B., 134 Wn. App. 942,
954, 143 P.3d 846 (2006). All three children here had special needs involving
unaddressed medical and developmental issues. Despite Goheen-Rengo's
lengthy participation in services, the evidence established that he made no
meaningful progress in developing the parental skills and demeanor necessary to
recognize and respond appropriately to the children's special needs. As Dr.
Prinster noted during his second evaluation, Goheen-Rengo's continuing rigid
personality traits prevented him from even recognizing his parental deficiencies
and limited his ability to correct the identified deficiencies. Under the
circumstances, substantial evidence supports the finding that there was little
likelihood Goheen-Rengo could remedy parental deficiencies within the near
future. See, e.o., In re Welfare of Hall, 99 Wn.2d 842, 850-51, 664 P.2d 1245(1983)(eight months not within near future of four year old); In re A.W. 53 Wn.
-23-
No. 76721-6-1/24
App. 22, 32, 765 P.2d 307(1988)(one year not within near future of three year
old).
Goheen-Rengo's reliance on T.L.G. is misplaced. In T.L.G., this court
reversed a termination order, concluding that the State failed to establish how the
parents' mental health issues related to their ability to care for their children. Id. at
205-06. Moreover, the Department failed to identify the specific parental
deficiencies or provide obviously needed mental health and anger management
services to the parents for over a year until they completed a psychological
evaluation. Id. at 198-99. Here, unlike T.L.G., the Department clearly identified
Goheen-Rengo's parental deficiencies, and he has not challenged the finding that
the Department offered or provided all necessary services, capable of correcting
those deficiencies within the foreseeable future.
A. Current Unfitness
Goheen-Rengo contends that the Department failed to establish that he is
currently unfit to parent. He relies on testimony that he was loving and affectionate
during visits with his children and on evidence challenging the pediatrician's
diagnosis of the twins' failure to thrive.
To satisfy its burden of proving current unfitness, the Department must
establish by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that "parenting deficiencies
prevent the parent from providing the child with 'basic nurture, health, or safety."
In re Welfare of A.B., 181 Wn. App. 45, 61, 323 P.3d 1062 (2014)(quoting RCW
13.34.020). For the reasons set forth above, the evidence established that despite
-24-
No. 76721-6-1/25
a variety of services, Goheen-Rengo failed to make meaningful progress in
rectifying parental deficiencies and in developing the skills necessary to safely
parent his children. Goheen-Rengo's anger and hostility continued to disrupt his
visits with the children. The inability to recognize his parental deficiencies or the
need for change, coupled with the rigidity in thinking and resistance to advice or
intervention from professionals, prevented Goheen-Rengo from responding to the
special needs of his children and posed significant risks to their safety. Goheen-
Rengo demonstrated little likelihood of improving his skills in the foreseeable
future. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding of current parental
unfitness.
B. Best Interests
Goheen-Rengo contends that even if the Department proved the elements
of RCW 13.34.180, it failed to establish that termination was in the children's best
interests. Whether termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child
is necessarily a highly fact-specific inquiry. In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d
689, 695, 611 P.2d 1245 (1980).
At the time of the termination trial, the children had been out of the family
home for more than two years. Social worker Skinner testified that the children
had unaddressed medical and developmental issues and needed stability and
permanency. Both parents generally blamed the Department or service providers
for these circumstances. Neither parent had been able to visit the children
-25-
No. 76721-6-1/26
regularly for many months. Nor was there any real likelihood that either parent
would be able to rectify parental deficiencies in the foreseeable future.
"Where a parent has been unable to rehabilitate over a lengthy dependency
period, a court is 'fully justified' in finding termination in the child's best interests
rather than 'leaving [the child] in the limbo of foster care for an indefinite period"
while the parent attempts rehabilitation. T.R., 108 Wn. App. at 167 (alteration in
original) (quoting A.W., 53 Wn. App. at 33). Substantial evidence supports the
court's determination that termination was in the best interests of the children.
The orders terminating parental rights are affirmed.
*7
- 14 1
WE CONCUR:
67 rT
co .1Z2 4
.ZIG.
c..n
ornc)
r-
cJ' 9-•
%.0
-26-