The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter of the Parental Rights to: No. 86596-0-I (consolidated
with No. 86597-8-I)
J.F.R. and J.T.R., minor children.
DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
FELDMAN, J. — A.R. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to two
of her children: J.T.R. and J.F.R. A.R. argues (1) the trial court erred when it found
the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (Department) had offered all
reasonably available necessary services to overcome the barriers to family
reunification, (2) the trial court relied on inadmissible expert testimony regarding
treatment for substance abuse, (3) she was deprived of her right to effective
assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to object to inadmissible hearsay,
(4) the trial court incorrectly characterized a witness’s testimony in concluding that
the Department had proved guardianship was not a viable option for J.T.R. and
J.F.R., and (5) the trial court erred in finding she was unfit to parent. Because
substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and A.R. has not otherwise
established an entitlement to relief, we affirm.
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
I
A.R. was married to J.T.R. and J.F.R.’s father, B.R., when the two children
were born in 2013 and 2016, respectively. Both children were born positive for
opiates and dependency cases were opened. A.R. and B.R. divorced in 2017 and
their parenting plan established that J.T.R. and J.F.R. would live with B.R., which
closed the dependency cases with the Department. 1 In 2018, A.R. began a
relationship with J.G.
In early 2020, B.R. was incarcerated and could no longer care for J.T.R.
and J.F.R. B.R. left J.T.R. and J.F.R. with A.R, who was living in motel rooms and
her car. A.R. was then pregnant with her third child, and in May 2020 she gave
birth to J.K.G. 2 J.K.G. tested positive for amphetamines and opiates at birth, and
the family was again referred to the Department. J.K.G. left the hospital in the care
of A.R.’s sister, M.K.P. In early 2021, dependency was ordered as to J.K.G.
With the Department actively involved in J.K.G.’s welfare, A.R. became
concerned it would open new dependency cases as to J.T.R. and J.F.R. and
concealed the fact they were living with her. When the Department learned that
J.T.R. and J.F.R. were living with A.R., it opened additional dependency cases as
to them because it believed A.R. continued to suffer from untreated substance
abuse and significant mental health issues that posed risks to their well-being.
1 B.R. relinquished his parental rights as to J.T.R. and J.F.R. by agreeing to an open adoption with
their foster parents at the beginning of the termination trial.
2 The scope of the termination proceeding initially covered A.R.’s and J.G.’s parental rights as to
J.K.G, but they reached an adoption agreement with J.K.G.’s foster parents during the termination
trial and thus this appeal concerns only A.R.’s parental rights to J.T.R and J.F.R.
-2-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
In April 2021, a trial court established dependency as to J.T.R. and J.F.R.,
finding there is “no parent, guardian or custodian capable of adequately caring for
the children, such that the children are in circumstances which constitute a danger
of substantial damage to the children’s psychological or physical development.”
The trial court held a contested dispositional hearing in June 2021 and A.R. was
ordered to (1) undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation and complete any
recommended treatment programs, (2) participate in random urinalysis testing
once a week for 90 days, (3) complete a psychological evaluation with a parenting
component and follow all recommended treatments stemming from that
evaluation, and (4) participate in evidence-based in-home services upon
reunification and follow all related recommendations. J.T.R. and J.F.R. were
placed with a foster family.
A.R. secured housing approximately four months later and began to
participate consistently in supervised visits with J.T.R. and J.F.R. at her new home.
She did not complete the drug and alcohol evaluation ordered in J.T.R.’s and
J.F.R.’s dependency cases. She started the court-ordered psychological
evaluation but did not complete the components that required in-person
observation to assess the parent-child relationship. A.R. also did not participate in
the court-ordered urinalysis testing.
In 2024, after repeated attempts to engage A.R. in services to treat her
substance abuse, the Department filed a petition to terminate A.R.’s parental rights
to J.T.R. and J.F.R. The trial court held a hearing and heard testimony from
several witnesses including A.R., M.K.P., the court appointed special advocate
-3-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
(CASA), social workers, and a therapist who worked with A.R. At the close of
evidence, the Department requested that the court grant its petition to terminate
A.R.’s parental rights. The CASA likewise recommended that the trial court grant
the petition. A.R., in turn, asked that the court deny the termination. The trial court
rejected A.R.’s arguments, granted the Department’s petition, and terminated her
parental rights to J.T.R. and J.F.R. A.R. timely appeals.
II
A
Where, as here, a parent challenges a termination order, we apply a well-
established “two-step framework.” In re Dependency of G.C.B., 28 Wn. App. 2d
157, 171, 535 P.3d 451 (2023). For the first step, the Department must prove six
statutory elements by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Id. Those six
elements are:
(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 or will, at the time of the
hearing, have 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 . . . .
-4-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
(f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship
clearly diminishes the child’s prospects for early integration into a
stable and permanent home. In making this determination, the court
must consider the efforts taken by the department to support a
guardianship and whether a guardianship is available as a
permanent option for the child. . . .
RCW 13.34.180(1). Also in the first step, “due process protections require that a
court make a finding of current unfitness before parental rights can be terminated.”
In re Parental Rights to K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d 466, 479, 379 P.3d 75 (2016). The
second step, not challenged here, is that the Department “must establish that
termination of parental rights would be in the child’s best interest by a
preponderance of the evidence.” RCW 13.34.190(1)(b); G.C.B., 28 Wn. App. 2d
at 171.
Trial courts are afforded broad discretion in termination proceedings, and
their decisions are “entitled to great deference on review.” In re Dependency of
J.D.P., 17 Wn. App. 2d 744, 755, 487 P.3d 960 (2021). We review the court’s
findings for substantial evidence. In re Dependency of A.M.F., 23 Wn. App. 2d
135, 141, 514 P.3d 755 (2022). We affirm findings as to RCW 13.34.180(1)’s
statutory elements where “the ultimate fact at issue is shown to be ‘highly
probable.’” J.D.P., 17 Wn. App. 2d at 754 (quoting In re Welfare of Sego, 82 Wn.2d
736, 739, 513 P.2d 831 (1973)). In performing this analysis, we do not reweigh
evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses, and “we view the evidence and
reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party.” A.M.F., 23 Wn. App. 2d at 141. Here, the prevailing party is the
Department. Lastly, where findings are unchallenged, they are verities on appeal.
In re Dependency of A.N.C., 24 Wn. App. 2d 408, 416, 520 P.3d 500 (2022).
-5-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
B
A.R. does not contest that RCW 13.34.180(1)(a)-(c) have been proven.
Instead, She asserts four arguments that, to varying degrees, relate to RCW
13.34.180(1)(d)-(f). We address each in turn.
1
A.R. argues the trial court erred when it found the Department had offered
all reasonably available necessary services to overcome the barriers to family
reunification. We disagree.
RCW 13.34.180(1)(d), quoted in full above, requires that the Department
prove it has offered or provided necessary and reasonably available services
capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future. “A
service is necessary within the meaning of the statute if it is needed to address a
condition that precludes reunification of the parent and child.” In re Dependency
of A.M.M., 182 Wn. App. 776, 793, 332 P.3d 500 (2014). According to A.R., the
record establishes that the Department failed to offer housing services when she
was unhoused. This, she claims, establishes that RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) is not
satisfied here.
A.R.’s argument fails because the condition that precluded reunification with
J.T.R. and J.F.R. was her substance abuse, not the lack of housing she
experienced for the first few months of the dependency case. Kim Cornell, a social
worker, testified at trial, “the primary barrier [to reunification] would have been and
continues to be just the reluctance to do [services regarding substance abuse]. I
have heard from [A.R.], that [she] didn’t believe a dependency should . . . exist,
-6-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
didn’t believe that [she] had parental deficiencies, didn’t believe that . . . any of the
services that were ordered . . . would remedy anything.” CASA Jennifer Reitz
confirmed the basis of her recommendation to terminate parental rights was
related to A.R.’s substance abuse, not A.R.’s initial lack of housing, as follows:
Q. So you described a lot of positives about [A.R.] . . . in this trial.
Based on your investigation do you have concerns about [A.R.’s]
parenting abilities and keeping the children safe?
A. I’m concerned about potential substance use. While [A.R. has]
verbally expressed [herself] very clearly that [she does not] think
that the state has any right to take UAs, it’s my opinion as a CASA
that that’s a clear way to demonstrate that you in fact do not have a
substance use problem and, you know, are ready to safely and
permanently parent your kids. And I can’t help but be suspicious that
if a parent is not engaged in that activity over a 3-year period of time
that . . . there’s still a lingering issue. And I believe with that pattern
of behavior come[s] a lot of inherent safety risks for the children.
I also feel like it lends itself to instability in the household and I feel
like in the case of [J.T.R.] and [J.F.R.][,] [t]hey are boys that
especially need stability and structure in their lives to thrive.
And so for those reasons I have made the recommendation[] [to
terminate A.R.’s parental rights that] I did on my report.
A.R. points to nothing in the record indicating the Department considered A.R.’s
prior lack of stable housing to be the barrier to reunification.
Moreover, assuming A.R.’s housing was a barrier to reunification at the
outset of the case, A.R. moved into stable housing four months into the years-long
dependency and remained housed for the duration of the case. CASA Reitz
testified as to A.R.’s continuous and stable housing, commenting that it benefited
the family as it allowed A.R. to complete supervised parent-child visits as soon as
she secured it:
-7-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
[Visitation] was definitely not happening as frequently and it was not
happening as reliably [prior to becoming housed in 2021] . . .
[visitation] was pretty much not possible until it was happening at
[her] current house. Since [supervised visits have] been at [A.R.’s]
current house and they’ve had a visit supervisor to bring the children
it’s been happening very reliably.
The record also indicates that A.R.’s social worker discussed housing support
while A.R. was unhoused at the beginning of the case and learned that A.R. was
already aware of available housing support and was already receiving housing
assistance. As the record here shows, lack of housing was not an actual barrier
to reunification.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the
Department offered all necessary and reasonably available services to address
the substance abuse that served as the barrier to reunification. A.R.’s contrary
arguments are unavailing.
2
A.R. argues the trial court erred in relying on inadmissible expert testimony
regarding treatment for substance abuse. We reject this argument.
Social work supervisor Megan Stampfli testified at the termination trial and
was certified as a qualified expert in “child welfare, social work, and permanency.”
Regarding A.R.’s lack of participation in court-ordered services to address her
substance abuse, the Department’s attorney asked Stampfli, “[i]f a parent had
substance dependence to the degree that they were recommended [for] inpatient
treatment, how difficult would it be for them to resolve that parenting deficiency by
-8-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
themselves?” 3 Defense counsel objected as to foundation, and the trial court
responded, “[Stampfli has] been qualified as an expert on this matter and it goes
to cred[ibi]lity so I’m going to overrule the objection.” Stampfli continued, “it is very
difficult to become sober if you have been recommended inpatient treatment and
you don’t do inpatient treatment.”
The trial court referenced Stampfli’s testimony in its findings relating to RCW
13.34.180(1)(e), which is quoted above. The court found:
c. Speaking to the potential for [A.R.] to remedy her parental
deficiencies without engaging in services, Supervisor [Amy]
Holmes[4] testified that:
i. Most parents often need support of formalize[d] services in
order to make the significant changes necessary to become
safe parents, it is very rare to see such changes without
engaging in services.
1. Supervisor Stampfli later testified to the same, that it would
be very unlikely parents could remedy parental
deficiencies without engaging in services, and she has
never seen this happen.
2. Supervisor Stampfli further testified that if a parent were to
be recommended inpatient treatment, based on her
experience, it would be incredibly difficult for them to
address their substance use by themselves.
As A.R. explains in her reply brief, “this is not a substantial evidence challenge, it
is about whether improper expert testimony was admitted and whether it affected
the outcome of the proceedings.” We therefore limit our analysis to those two
issues.
3 A.R. completed an evaluation recommending a 30-day inpatient treatment as part of J.K.G.’s
dependency in 2020, but did not follow the recommendation. A.R. did not complete the drug and
alcohol evaluation ordered in J.T.R.’s and J.F.R.’s dependency cases.
4 Department social work supervisor Holmes’ qualifications are not challenged by A.R.
-9-
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
Under ER 702, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
Furthermore, an expert may be qualified by experience alone. Id. An expert may
not, however, “testify about information outside [their] area of expertise.” Katare
v. Katare, 175 Wn.2d 23, 38, 283 P.3d 546 (2012). “The trial court has broad
discretion in determining whether an expert’s testimony is admissible under ER
702.” In re Det. of McGary, 175 Wn. App. 328, 339, 306 P.3d 1005 (2013). “The
exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed by an appellate court except for a
very plain abuse thereof.” Katare, 175 Wn.2d at 38 (internal quotation marks
omitted). We “will not disturb the trial court’s ruling if the reasons for admitting or
excluding the opinion evidence are both fairly debatable.” Miller v. Likins, 109 Wn.
App. 140, 147, 34 P.3d 835 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to A.R.’s argument, Stampfli was sufficiently qualified to testify as
an expert on substance abuse recovery. Stampfli holds a bachelor’s degree in
psychology and a master’s degree in social work. In addition, she completed core
academy social work training, which included substance abuse training in both
Colorado and Washington, and participates in ongoing annual training as a social
work supervisor. Stampfli worked for over a decade as a social worker in Colorado
and Washington before being promoted to supervisor. She then supervised and
managed hundreds of cases for the Department in Washington. Considering her
experience, training, and education, the trial court had tenable grounds to conclude
- 10 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
that Stampfli was sufficiently qualified to testify as to A.R.’s likelihood of
overcoming substance abuse without participating in treatment and that her
testimony would be helpful to determining whether there is a likelihood that
conditions will be remedied so that J.T.R. and J.F.R. could be returned to A.R. in
the near future. Additionally, the court’s findings indicate that it also relied on
similar testimony by Holmes, which is unchallenged here. On this record, A.R. has
not established reversible error.
3
A.R. next raises two arguments that relate to the efforts taken by the
Department to support a guardianship and whether a guardianship is available as
a permanent option. Such findings are required by RCW 13.34.180(1)(f), which is
quoted above. We disagree with both arguments.
a
First, A.R. argues she was deprived of her right to effective assistance of
counsel when her attorney failed to object to inadmissible hearsay relating to the
foster parents’ disinterest in guardianship. To establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, a party must show deficient performance and resulting prejudice. In re
Dependency of S.M.H., 128 Wn. App. 45, 61, 115 P.3d 990 (2005).
“Counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls ‘below an objective standard of
reasonableness based on consideration of all of the circumstances.’” Id. at 61
(quoting State v. Thomas, 109 Wn.2d 222, 226, 743 P.2d 816 (1987)). “To satisfy
the prejudice prong, a party must show a ‘reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been
- 11 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
different.’” Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct.
2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)). “Scrutiny of counsel’s performance is highly
deferential and courts will indulge in a strong presumption of reasonableness.”
Thomas, 109 Wn.2d at 226.
Turning to the alleged deficiency of counsel, A.R. claims her lawyer failed
to object to inadmissible hearsay during the testimony of social worker Cornell,
who testified at the termination trial regarding permanency options for J.T.R. and
J.F.R. After establishing that the children were in “pre-adoptive homes,” the
Department asked Cornell, “[h]as the department discussed guardianship [of
J.T.R. and J.F.R.] with these proposed adoptive parents?” Cornell responded,
“Yes.” The Department continued, “What is their interest in adoption versus
guardianship?” and Cornell continued, “None of the foster parents are interested
in guardianship.” A.R.’s counsel did not object to this line of questioning. This
failure to object, according to A.R., was both constitutionally deficient and
prejudicial.
Even if we assume (without deciding) that A.R. has established deficient
performance, she has not established any resulting prejudice. The record shows
that the Department considered whether a viable alternative to termination of
A.R.’s parental rights existed by inquiring into the possibility of guardianship with
M.K.P., discussed in greater detail below. Furthermore, A.R. does not challenge
the trial court’s finding that “[g]uardianship is not an available permanent plan,” and
- 12 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
it is therefore a verity on appeal. See A.N.C., 24 Wn. App. 2d at 416. 5 Thus, A.R.
cannot show—as she must—that the outcome of the trial would have been
different had her attorney objected on hearsay grounds to the above-referenced
testimony.
For similar reasons, A.R.’s reliance on In re Welfare of J.M., 130 Wn. App.
912, 125 P.3d 245 (2005), is misplaced. In J.M., the attorney who represented a
mother facing termination allowed the State to present evidence from several
witnesses through their written reports, which were hearsay. Id. at 916-19.
Because only two witnesses testified live—the social worker and guardian ad
litem—the vast majority of evidence was inadmissible hearsay. Id. This court
reversed termination in J.M. because such representation was both constitutionally
deficient and prejudicial. Id. at 924-25. Here, in contrast, A.R.’s attorney failed to
object to a single question regarding an issue—whether the foster parents wanted
to adopt J.T.R. and J.F.R.—that is not in contention. J.M. does not require reversal
here.
b
Second, A.R. argues the trial court incorrectly characterized M.K.P.’s
testimony in concluding that the Department had proved guardianship was not a
viable option for J.F.R. and J.T.R. When M.K.P. was asked whether she “would
. . . be willing to become [J.T.R.’s] and [J.F.R.’s] permanent guardian,” she replied,
“of course.” A.R. claims the trial court somehow overlooked or misapprehended
5 A.R. challenges only Finding of Fact (FoF) 2.16 relating to services offered by the Department
and FoF 2.20 relating to A.R.’s unfitness to parent.
- 13 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
this testimony because its written order states, “[M.K.P] did not testify that she
would be willing to be a permanent placement or a guardian.” This factual error,
A.R. argues, constitutes an abuse of discretion and thus requires reversal.
Although the cited portion of the order is erroneous, the record clearly
shows that the trial court was not, in fact, mistaken about M.K.P.’s willingness to
serve as a guardian. In its oral ruling, the trial court noted, “[M.K.P] testified . . .
[she] would be willing to serve again in any capacity.” Additionally, in concluding
that no guardianship option was available, the trial court properly looked beyond
M.K.P.’s willingness to serve as a guardian to her ability to do so in J.T.R.’s and
J.F.R.’s best interests. M.K.P.’s viability to serve as a guardian to J.F.R. and J.T.R.
was substantially litigated below. When J.K.G. was born positive for opiates and
amphetamines, he was initially placed with M.K.P. Importantly, J.K.G. did not
remain with M.K.P. because while M.K.P. was supervising one of A.R.’s visits with
J.K.G., A.R. absconded with J.K.G. and kept him overnight. RP 446, 994-95.
When M.K.P. discovered J.K.G. had been taken, she did not alert authorities. The
removal was discovered only when a social worker came by M.K.P.’s home and
J.K.G. was no longer there. J.K.G. was removed from M.K.P.’s care for this reason
and placed with a foster family. This incident indicates M.K.P. was not a suitable
guardian.
Numerous witnesses similarly testified at the termination trial that M.K.P.
was not practicably available as a guardian to J.T.R. and J.F.R. Holmes testified
M.K.P. was considered “disqualified” as a caregiver for J.T.R. and J.F.R. not only
because of the incident with J.K.G., but also due to her “lack of cooperativeness
- 14 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
when [the Department was] trying to locate [J.T.R.] and [J.F.R.]” after J.K.G. was
declared dependent and J.T.R. and J.F.R. were suspected of living with A.R.
again. Reflecting on these incidents, another supervisor at the Department
testified, “there’s been concerns with [M.K.P.’s] ability to be protective of the
children and put the children’s needs first” based on her conduct in the ongoing
case.
In its oral ruling, the trial court appropriately highlighted the substantial
record of concerns with M.K.P. noting:
[M.K.P.] is [A.R.’s] sister who is very close to mother and has been a
caregiver for the children . . . [S]hortly after [J.K.G.’s] birth [M.K.P.]
was the placement for [J.K.G.]. However this was taken away when
mother came and took [J.K.G.] to show the baby to [his father, J.G.].
DCYF was alarmed about the fact that [M.K.P.] did not report this
violation, and then [M.K.P.] lost her placement status.
The written order incorporated the oral ruling by reference and concluded,
“Guardianship is not an available permanent plan.” On this record, A.R. has not
established reversible error regarding the trial court’s findings as to the efforts
taken by the Department to support a guardianship and whether a guardianship is
available as a permanent option.
C
Finally, A.R. argues the trial court erred in finding she was currently unfit to
parent. We again disagree.
Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the custody and care of their
children. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 599
(1982). As stated above, along with finding the Department satisfied the elements
of RCW 13.34.180(1), as discussed in section II.B above, due process protections
- 15 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
require that the trial court make a finding of current parental unfitness before it can
terminate parental rights. K.M.M., 186 Wn.2d at 479. The proper inquiry for
parental unfitness “is whether the existing parental deficiencies, or other
conditions, prevent the parent from providing for the child’s basic health, welfare,
and safety.” Id. at 493.
Here, the trial court made an explicit finding of parental unfitness. It found:
The passage of time should have allowed the mother to correct her
parental deficiencies; her lack of engagement in nearly four years of
dependency proceedings demonstrates a failure to substantially
improve her ability to safely care for her children. Instead of working
to complete her services, [A.R.] chose to challenge and dispute the
Department.
In addition to A.R.’s failure to make any progress against court-ordered services,
the trial court noted A.R. “did not demonstrate any reflection on her own behavior
and choices up until that point” and that she believed any statements by J.T.R. and
J.F.R. as to their wishes to be adopted could be explained by “influence[] and
manipulat[ion] by the foster parents.”
Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that A.R. was currently
unfit to parent J.T.R. and J.F.R. A.R. and her partner, J.G., admitted to use of
unprescribed drugs and methamphetamine since her children were born. Over the
course of the years-long dependency case, A.R. refused to complete the court-
ordered services that would have addressed her use of substances and resultant
parental deficiencies because she “do[esn’t] communicate with the Department.”
Explaining her rationale for rejecting the services the Department offered, A.R.
testified that social workers’ attempts to offer her substance abuse services were
ineffective because they were “not about what [services] I’d like to engage in.
- 16 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
[They were] about what I need to engage in.” Furthermore, unchallenged expert
testimony indicated that A.R.’s refusal to participate in urinalysis testing suggests
she is still using. A.R.’s refusal to participate in services to determine the nature
and extent of her substance use reasonably supports the conclusion that she has
failed to address the issue and is currently unfit to parent.
Notwithstanding the above analysis, A.R. argues the evidence does not
show she is currently unfit to parent J.T.R. and J.F.R. To support that argument,
A.R. claims in the two years prior to the termination trial she has never presented
a safety concern. To be sure, A.R.’s visits with J.T.R. and J.F.R. went well, and
the trial court mentioned this in its oral ruling. But as the trial court found, “[T]here
are big differences between visits and full time care. Making sure children are safe,
fed, going to school[,] seeing their medical doctors, and generally being able to
handle anything coming up twenty-four-seven is a much greater responsibility
[than] the set time of visitation.” And although A.R. completed the Positive
Parenting Program in her home, she did not complete a drug and alcohol
evaluation or random urinalysis testing after she was ordered to do so in 2021.
Under RCW 13.34.180(1)(e), a parent’s failure to substantially improve parental
deficiencies within 12 months following entry of a dependency order “shall give rise
to a rebuttable presumption that there is little likelihood that conditions will be
remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the near future.” A.R.
has not rebutted that presumption.
A.R.’s argument regarding this issue is also legally flawed. As In re
Dependency of J.C., 130 Wn.2d 418, 924 P.2d 21 (1996), explains:
- 17 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
past history is a factor that a court may consider in weighing a
parent’s current fitness. This position is sensible because if
substance abuse is so extensive as to render a person unfit to parent
and it is unlikely that the unfitness can be remedied in the near future,
it makes little difference whether that abuse occurred in the past or
present.
Id. at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated more succinctly, termination
proceedings “do[] not require relitigation of the dependency determination.” In re
Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). Thus, contrary
to A.R.’s argument, the Department was not required to reestablish the specific
parental deficiencies that led to the dependency determination.
Lastly, A.R. cites In re Welfare of A.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 232 P.3d 1104
(2010), in support of her argument, but that reliance is misplaced. In A.B., the
State argued the trial court had made an implicit finding that the father was unfit to
parent. Id. at 922. The court rejected the State’s argument because the father had
completed services to address his adjudicated parental deficiencies, including
substance abuse, and the trial court made many findings that tended to show he
was not currently unfit. Id. at 912-24. Here, in contrast, the trial court made an
explicit finding that A.R. remained unfit to parent, so we need not infer such a
finding. Equally important, the father in A.B. completed services for his identified
parental deficiency of substance use, and so that parental deficiency could not
have been a reason to infer he remained unfit to parent. Id. at 913-16. That did
not happen here. Thus, A.B. does not establish an entitlement to relief.
- 18 -
No. 86596-0-I
(consol. w/ No. 86597-8-I)
III
Because substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings and A.R.
has not otherwise established an entitlement to relief, we affirm the order
terminating her parental rights to J.T.R. and J.F.R.
WE CONCUR:
- 19 -