Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; April 23, 1990; Washington; State Appellate Court
Sandra and Paul Davis appeal the termination of their parental rights to their son, P.D. Born on August 30, 1987, P.D. was placed in foster care shortly after his birth due to Sandra's involuntary commitment at Western State Hospital for schizophrenia and her inability to care for herself. A dependency petition cited her mental health issues, lack of prenatal care, and the potential developmental risks to P.D. Additionally, the couple had a history of neglect and abuse towards another child, which influenced the court's decision.
Following the dependency order issued on November 6, 1987, Sandra was required to comply with mental health treatment and attend an anger management class, while Paul was mandated to complete parenting and anger management classes and undergo a psychological evaluation. Throughout the dependency period, Sandra remained at Western State Hospital, with visitation arrangements for P.D. that often ended prematurely due to her needs. Testimonies from mental health professionals indicated that while Sandra showed some progress, her prognosis remained poor, and she was unlikely to fulfill parenting responsibilities in the near future.
The court also considered the couple's prior history with their older child, N.D., which included established dependency leading to termination of parental rights. Ultimately, the court affirmed the termination of the parent-child relationship based on the evidence of ongoing instability in Sandra's mental health and the family’s inability to provide a safe environment for P.D.
N.D. exhibited signs of extreme fear and neglect, lacking basic hygiene and social interaction skills, and was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome, requiring hospitalization. During her dependency, her mother, Sandra, was involuntarily committed to Western State Hospital with no planned release date, focusing solely on her treatment rather than parenting. Initially, Paul retained custody of N.D. and received various support services from DSHS, including counseling and parenting classes. After a year, N.D. was placed in foster care due to Paul's inability to meet her basic needs and his lack of understanding regarding child care and community hygiene standards. Although Paul attended parenting classes, he struggled to apply what he learned, and began missing visitations, leading N.D. to withdraw from him.
Following an incident involving Paul's erratic behavior, a termination petition was filed and granted for both parents. Despite extensive services provided to Paul, including therapy, evaluations, and supervised visitation, he demonstrated little progress in developing parenting skills. Testimonies indicated his inability to recognize and respond to N.D.'s needs, and the psychologist assessed that he would struggle to care for any child, particularly for P.D., who has multiple special needs. The testimony concluded that finding a permanent caretaker for P.D. was in the child's best interest, emphasizing the necessity of an organized and capable parent to manage his complex requirements.
On February 2, 1989, the trial court terminated the parental rights of Sandra and Paul to their child, P.D., leading to this appeal. Under RCW 13.34.180, a termination petition must be filed in juvenile court and must establish specific criteria, including that the child is dependent, services have been offered to address parental deficiencies, and that the continuation of the parent-child relationship is detrimental to the child's prospects for a stable home. RCW 13.34.190 allows for termination if these allegations are proven by clear and convincing evidence, or if some allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and if the termination is in the child's best interests.
Sandra disputes the trial court's findings related to the provision of necessary services. In reviewing these findings, the court must determine if they are supported by substantial evidence, particularly under the clear and convincing standard. The State is required to affirmatively offer necessary services, which in Sandra's case included mental health treatment and supervised visitation. However, these visits were reportedly problematic, with Sandra displaying awkwardness and often ending visits early.
Sandra claims that the State failed to provide her with parenting classes and anger management evaluations, supported by testimonies from her doctor and mental health worker, who believed these services could have helped her become a competent parent. Conversely, the State argues that expert testimony indicated Sandra's severe mental health issues rendered her incapable of caring for herself or others, making additional services unnecessary.
Testimony indicated that Sandra inconsistently adhered to her medication and exhibited a volatile emotional state during her time at Western State Hospital. The case In re Ramquist established that a parent's refusal or inability to utilize provided services absolves the State from offering additional assistance. The trial court concluded that all necessary services were extended to Sandra during her inpatient treatment. Even if the State had not provided adequate services, sufficient evidence suggested that these would not have rectified her parental deficiencies in the foreseeable future. Mental health professionals noted Sandra's progress towards a less restrictive placement, which would take at least six months before considering her ability to care for her son. The trial court deemed that this timeline was insufficient given the age of the child.
Regarding the admissibility of evidence, a trial court's ruling is upheld unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Rule ER 404(b) states that evidence of past crimes or acts cannot be used solely to demonstrate a person's character but may be relevant for other purposes. Although typically applied in criminal cases, it can also apply in civil contexts. The case In re Ross indicated that a parent’s entire history is relevant in termination of parental rights cases. This principle was reinforced in cases such as In re Bennett and In re Frederiksen, where previous instances of neglect and harm to children were considered in evaluating a parent's capacity to care for their child.
Washington courts have not yet ruled on the admissibility of evidence under ER 404(b) in termination proceedings, but such evidence is deemed relevant. The primary concern in these hearings is whether the natural parents can meet the child’s future needs, rather than proving specific past allegations. The court likens this process to assessing a criminal defendant's future dangerousness, where past behavior may be evaluated.
The equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and Washington Constitution ensure that individuals in similar situations receive equal treatment under the law. Three tests are applied to determine potential equal protection violations: rational relationship, strict scrutiny, and intermediate scrutiny. The State acknowledges that parents facing termination are similarly situated and entitled to equal protection, but Sandra fails to demonstrate a denial of this right.
RCW 13.34.180(4) mandates that the State provide necessary services to correct parental deficiencies, which must be individualized. Sandra could not show that she received unequal treatment concerning the services provided. The court found no evidence of error regarding Sandra’s claims, leading to the conclusion that the trial court appropriately terminated her parental rights.
Mr. Davis received numerous services during the dependency period, including parenting classes and counseling, with visitation rights progressively adjusted. He has not contested the trial court's factual findings, which are therefore upheld as factual verities on appeal.
Paul contends that the Department should have facilitated structured visits for him, Sandra, and P.D. to address family deficiencies. The State asserts that joint visitation was previously attempted but terminated due to conflicts between Paul and Sandra. Additionally, Paul filed for divorce prior to the termination hearing, rendering joint visitation impractical. The trial court determined that Paul had received extensive services over 15 months for the current dependency and several years for a previous one, concluding that these services were sufficient to address his parental deficiencies. The court affirmed that Paul had not presented compelling evidence of any missing services.
The trial court's findings indicated that, despite extensive support, Paul was unable to provide adequate parenting for his 15-month-old child. Findings highlighted that while he could follow specific instructions, he struggled to apply general parenting principles across different situations. Furthermore, Paul's belief that he was a responsible parent and his attribution of issues to Sandra indicated a lack of understanding of his parental role and the child's needs. Overall, the trial court's assessment suggested a minimal likelihood of improvement in Paul's parenting capabilities in the near future, leading to the affirmation of the termination of his parental rights. The ruling was agreed upon by Judges Webster and Pekelis, with a denial of reconsideration on May 23, 1990, and a review denial at 115 Wn.2d 1019 (1990). Additionally, it was noted that several of Sandra's less restrictive placements had been revoked due to her challenges in functioning outside a hospital environment, and evidence regarding older children was deemed admissible in the dependency case.
