only if parental unfitness shown by satisfying six statutory requirements may court determine if termination is in best interest ofchild
How later courts described this case
- only if parental unfitness shown by satisfying six statutory requirements may court determine if termination is in best interest ofchild
- termination of parental rights was in child’s best interests, after nearly six years of legal uncertainty
- invalidating dependency order in appeal from termination order where dependency order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Stephens, J.
¶37 (concurring in dissent) — I concur in Justice Alexander’s dissent. RCW 13.34.180(l)(a) unambiguously requires a finding of dependency before the State may bring a petition seeking termination of a parent and child relationship. The proceedings in this case demonstrate that the parties and the lower court were aware of the need for a dependency finding, as they relied entirely on what turned out to be a void dependency order.
¶38 I share the majority’s concern for K.N.J., who is nearly six years old and has never been in her father’s custody. There is a legitimate desire in cases such as this to find a solution rather than disrupt a child’s life based on what some may label a “technicality.” But, this is not the first case in which a defect in subject matter jurisdiction has surfaced to thwart the interests of certainty and finality, nor is it likely to be the last. I cannot reconcile the majority’s solution with the requirements of the statute, which does not authorize an appellate court to make an after-the-fact dependency determination based on facts *587 found at the termination trial. I therefore concur in the dissent.
After modification, further reconsideration denied August 2, 2011.