Citations and pin cites are based on the Westlaw online version of the cited material.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

In the Matter of the Dependency of 

S.E.S.

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, 

YOUTH, AND FAMILIES,

Respondent,

v.

ISAAC HENRY SPEAR,

Appellant.

 No. 81077-4-I

 DIVISION ONE

 UNPUBLISHED OPINION

SMITH, J. — The father appeals the 2019 termination of his parental rights 

with respect to his daughter, S.E.S. He contends that the Department of 

Children, Youth, and Families (Department) failed to establish (1) that the 

Department offered all services necessary to address his parental deficiencies

and (2) that the father was unlikely to remedy his deficiencies in the near future. 

We conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s 

conclusions and affirm. 

FACTS

S.E.S. is a 10-year-old girl and the third of the father’s four children. In 

July 2016, the children were removed from the home for allegations of physical 

abuse stemming from S.E.S. and her brother having fractured arms. After further 

investigation, the Department concluded that the fractures were most likely 

accidental. However, due to findings of neglect related to supervision and 
No. 81077-4-I/2

2

medical and dental care, S.E.S. was found to be dependent on November 15, 

2016. S.E.S. was 5 years old at the time she was removed from her parents’ 

custody, and she has remained in foster care since the removal. 

In its termination petition, the Department alleged that the father’s parental 

deficiencies included “lack of parenting skills, anger management, mental health 

issues, and lack of safe and stable housing.” The trial court found that the

father’s parenting deficiencies included a “lack of parenting skills, which 

manifested in excessive discipline against the child, angry behavior which led to 

anger management issues, and general neglect and inability to meet the needs 

of his child.” 

S.E.S. and her father do not have a close relationship. S.E.S. has trauma 

and attachment disorders, which result in “monumental tantrums.” The trial court 

described the children’s reports of experiencing “extreme physical punishments 

and abusive discipline” from the father. The father yelled at his children, spanked 

S.E.S. during one visit, and “teased [her] in ways she did not like and even 

scared her.” Furthermore, the court noted the father’s failure to provide parental 

support to S.E.S., including a failure to notice when she was hungry, to bring 

activities to visits, or to properly supervise her. The court found that the father 

would fall asleep during visits and leave S.E.S. unsupervised in public settings. It 

noted his failure to engage with her during visits and found that he “is unable to, 

even for a short period, engage with his child” or to “put [her] needs above his 

own. This has been a consistent theme since the beginning of the case and 

remains true today.” Furthermore, it found the father’s “prospects for being able 
No. 81077-4-I/3

3

to adequately parent and provide for even the basic needs of the child are 

dismal.” The father does not challenge any of these findings on appeal.

At the outset of the dependency, the trial court ordered a psychological 

evaluation with a parenting component and parent coaching. The Department 

referred the father to the psychological evaluation in December 2016, and the 

evaluator recommended anger management treatment and parent coaching. 

The Department provided the father with “three separate rounds of parent 

coaching/instruction, including parent coaching through both Triple P and Family 

Preservation Services, . . . an anger management evaluation and treatment, and 

domestic violence assessment.” The father also used his private insurance to 

access neurology appointments and testing as well as dialectical behavior 

therapy. In an unchallenged finding, the court determined that “[t]hese parenting 

programs were the appropriate programs to remedy [the father’s] deficiency of 

lack of parenting skills and neglect and the Department provided the proper and 

appropriate services to help [him] parent better.”

After a trial, the court terminated the father’s parental rights. The father 

appeals.

ANALYSIS

To terminate parental rights, the Department must establish the six 

statutory factors provided in RCW 13.34.180(1) by clear, cogent, and convincing 

evidence. In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d 568, 576-77, 257 P.3d 522 

(2011). If these factors are met, the Department must then prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the best interests of the 
No. 81077-4-I/4

4

child. In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 160, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001).

Here, the father contends that the Department failed to meet its burden

with regard to two of the statutory factors: (1) that the Department offered all 

services necessary to address his parental deficiencies and (2) that the father

was unlikely to remedy his deficiencies in the near future. Because the trial 

court’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, we disagree.

Standard of Review

On review, we uphold the trial court’s factual findings if they are supported 

by substantial evidence, and if so, we then determine whether the findings 

support the court’s conclusions of law and judgment. In re Dependency of P.D., 

58 Wn. App. 18, 25, 792 P.2d 159 (1990). Substantial evidence is “evidence in 

sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the 

declared premise.” In re Welfare of T.B., 150 Wn. App. 599, 607, 209 P.3d 497 

(2009). Unchallenged findings are verities on appeal. In re Welfare of L.N.B.-L., 

157 Wn. App. 215, 243, 237 P.3d 944 (2010). We defer to the trial court’s 

advantage in viewing the proceedings and will not reweigh the evidence or 

determine the credibility of witnesses. In re Welfare of A.W., 182 Wn.2d 689, 

711, 344 P.3d 1186 (2015). Finally, we view the evidence and reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. In re Termination of

M.J., 187 Wn. App. 399, 407, 348 P.3d 1265 (2015).

Provision of Necessary Services

The father contends that the court erred in finding that the Department 

provided him with the necessary services to correct his parental deficiencies. 
No. 81077-4-I/5

5

Because substantial evidence supports the court’s findings, we disagree. 

RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) requires the Department to establish that courtordered services “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.” “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). This inquiry is “not limited to services ordered by the court 

during the dependency, but rather the Department must show it offered all 

necessary available services.” In re Parental Rights to I.M.-M., 196 Wn. App. 

914, 921, 385 P.3d 268 (2016). Even if the Department “inexcusably fails” to 

offer services, termination may be appropriate if the services “would not have 

remedied the parent’s deficiencies in the foreseeable future.” T.R., 108 Wn. App. 

at 164.

1. Housing Services

The father first contends that the Department failed to refer him to services 

that would help him find safe and stable housing, despite alleging that a lack of 

such housing was one of his parental deficiencies. Where lack of housing is a 

parental deficiency, the Department unquestionably has an obligation to refer the 

parent to housing resources to the extent reasonably possible. In this case, 

where the Department alleged lack of housing as a parental deficiency in its 

petition for termination, the Department should have provided such services. 
No. 81077-4-I/6

6

However, this failure does not mandate reversal, because the trial court did not 

conclude that lack of safe and stable housing was a parental deficiency. 

The trial court concluded that the father’s parenting deficiencies included a 

“lack of parenting skills, which manifested in excessive discipline against the 

child, angry behavior which led to anger management issues, and general 

neglect and the inability to meet the needs of his child.” The court did note 

elsewhere that as of trial, “the father did not have a suitable home to take the 

child to and continued to have a lack of safe and stable housing.” However, the 

father testified that he would be able to obtain suitable housing within three 

months. Making reasonable inferences in favor of the Department, and given the 

court’s uncontested findings that as of trial there was an unacceptable risk that 

S.E.S. would be neglected in her father’s care or that the father would “commit 

significant and abusive physical discipline against the child,” the father’s shortterm lack of safe housing was not a condition “preclud[ing] reunification of the 

parent and child.” See A.M.M., 182 Wn. App. at 793.

2. Bonding Services

The father next contends that “[b]onding therapy in the context of parentchild or family therapy was a necessary service” and the Department’s failure to 

provide such therapy barred the court from terminating his parental rights. He 

challenges the trial court’s findings that family or parent-child therapy was not a 

necessary service. Specifically, the court found that while they “could help 

eventually with parenting deficiencies,” “after three years, because there was not 

enough progress in other areas, [these therapies were] not something that could 
No. 81077-4-I/7

7

solve parental deficiencies in the foreseeable future.” Because these findings 

are supported by the record, we disagree with the father that bonding therapy

was a necessary service.

One doctor who evaluated the father testified that in order for therapy with 

his children to be effective, the father needed “to have insight into his behavior so 

he could engage effectively with his kids and not . . . come off as dismissive.” 

She testified that “if he didn’t have insight into his own . . . feelings, it could be 

harmful.” In an unchallenged finding, which is supported by the testimony of the 

father’s anger management counselor, the trial court found that the father “was 

unable to obtain sufficient insight [into] his behaviors.” Because substantial 

evidence supports the trial court’s findings that S.E.S. and her father “are not 

ready to participate in counseling together” and that it could not “solve parental 

deficiencies in the foreseeable future,” we affirm the trial court’s finding that 

parent-child or family therapy is not a necessary service. See T.R., 108 Wn. 

App. at 164 (Termination is appropriate if unoffered services “would not have 

remedied the parent’s deficiencies in the foreseeable future.”).

The father cites In re Parental Rights to B.P., 186 Wn.2d 292, 317, 376 

P.3d 350 (2016), for the proposition that the parent does not have the “burden to 

prove that these services would succeed before the State provided them.” 

However, the court in B.P. conditioned its holding that the parent should have 

been provided attachment services on the fact that the Department had not 

established that the services would be futile. Id. There was no testimony that 

such services “were withheld because they would have failed or taken too long.” 
No. 81077-4-I/8

8

Id. at 318. In this case, as described above, there is support in the record for the 

trial court’s conclusion that the father continued to lack insight which would be a 

prerequisite for successful parent-child or family counseling.1 

Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that the Department provided the 

father with necessary services is supported by the record.

Likelihood of Remedying Deficiencies in the Near Future

The father also challenges the trial court’s conclusion that he was unlikely 

to remedy his deficiencies in the near future. Specifically, he challenges the trial 

court’s finding that the near future for S.E.S. was “‘less than three months,’” as 

well as the court’s findings regarding the father’s lack of progress in anger 

management. We conclude that the trial court’s findings that S.E.S.’s near future 

was less than three months and that the father was unlikely to remedy his 

deficiencies in that time are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

RCW 13.34.180(1)(e) requires the Department to establish that “there is 

little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned 

to the parent in the near future.” The focus of this factor is on “whether parental 

deficiencies have been corrected.” In re Dependency of K.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 

144, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). The question of “what constitutes the near future 

depends on the age of the child and the circumstances of the placement.” In re 

 

1 The father also points to the availability of different options for bonding 

therapy, including parent-child interaction therapy. Because the trial court’s 

findings that bonding therapy in general was not appropriate for S.E.S. and her 

father, we need not address whether such therapy was available. See

RCW 13.34.180(d) (requiring “all necessary services, reasonably available, 

capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future” to 

be offered).
No. 81077-4-I/9

9

Dependency of T.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181, 204, 108 P.3d 156 (2005). 

Furthermore, 

A parent’s failure to substantially improve parental deficiencies 

within twelve months following entry of the dispositional 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. The presumption shall not arise 

unless the petitioner makes a showing that all necessary services 

reasonably capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within 

the foreseeable future have been clearly offered or provided.

RCW 13.34.180(1)(e). 

First, the court reasonably determined that S.E.S.’s future was less than 

three months because this determination is supported by several unchallenged 

findings. The court found that S.E.S. was almost nine years old and had been 

waiting for three to four years for resolution in this case. Furthermore, S.E.S. had

“needs arising out of her trauma and attachment disorders, which result[ed] in 

monumental tantrums that last between 30 and 45 minutes.” While S.E.S.’s 

foster home was planning to adopt her, further delay in permanency could have 

escalated her behaviors and decreased her ability to be integrated into a stable 

and permanent home. Accordingly, S.E.S. was “in grave need of resolution.” 

Given these unchallenged facts and our deference to the fact finder, which is 

especially important in child welfare proceedings, we find no basis to reject the 

trial court’s determination. A.W., 182 Wn.2d at 711.

The father next contends that the court erred in finding that he was 

unlikely to remedy his deficiencies in the near future. The father points 

specifically to the testimony of Dr. Sierra Swing, who said that in a best-case 

scenario, the father could become a minimally safe parent “in the next three 
No. 81077-4-I/10

10

months.” First, because we find substantial evidence supports the trial court’s 

findings that S.E.S.’s near future is less than three months, this testimony does 

not establish that the father would remedy his deficiencies in the near future. 

Second, this statement is contrasted with the testimony of other experts, who 

stated that the father’s “prospects of ever being able to parent the child or be 

safe to do so [were] dismal.” Different witnesses offered different opinions, and it 

is the trial court’s role to weigh the credibility of these witnesses. See A.W., 182 

Wn.2d at 711. We decline to reweigh the evidence and accordingly uphold the 

trial court’s determination.

The father disagrees and points to evidence in the record that he had 

made considerably more progress in anger management than the court 

acknowledged. However, even if we agreed, this would not mandate reversal,

because the trial court’s other findings still establish that the father was unlikely 

to remedy his deficiencies in the near future. For instance, the father does not 

challenge the trial court’s finding that his “prospects for being able to adequately 

parent and provide for even the basic needs of the child are dismal.” Given the 

evidence in the record indicating the father’s failure to provide for S.E.S.’s needs 

or make improvement in this regard, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the trial court’s finding that he was unlikely to remedy his deficiencies in 

the near future.
No. 81077-4-I/11

11

Accordingly, we affirm the termination of parental rights.

 

WE CONCUR: