IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE In the Matter of the Dependency of: X.S.
In the Matter of the Dependency of:
X.W. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 36948

- 0

- III

(consolidated w/ No. 36949

- 8

- III )

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

F EARI NG , J.

— John Smith appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his two daughters. We affirm. FACTS We take the facts from trial testimony and exhibits admitted during the termination trial. John Smith and Connie Williams are the biological parents of two young girls, Carrie, born April 10, 2016, and Jane, born October 16, 2017. All four names are pseudonyms. Carrie tested positive for opiates at birth due to Williams’s heroin use throughout her pregnancy. On April 12, 2016, the Departmen t of Social and Health Services, now the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), filed a dependency petition for Carrie. FILED APRIL 16, 2020 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals Division IIINo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

2 In late April 2016, Connie Williams burglarized John Smith’s home after a domestic violence incident between the two. Th ereafter a court entered an order prohibiting contact between Williams and Smith. In May 2016, DCYF placed Carrie with Connie Williams at Isabella House, where Williams received inpatient chemical dependency treatment and mental health, parenting, and dom estic violence se rvices. Pursuant to the dependency in Carrie’s case, mental health therapist Steven Erickson provided counseling and cognitive behavioral th erapy for John Smith from April 2016 until Erickson’s retirement in December 2016. Erickson, in part, addressed Smith’s history of trauma and anxiety. Erickson sought to help Smith establish boundaries, improve his ability to employ impulse control, and establish trust in interpersonal relationships. Amanda Clemons provided John Smith family thera py from April 2016 to May 2018. Clemons counseled Smith on the need for boundaries with Connie Williams and the importance of Smith protecting his children. According to Clemons, Smith repeatedly denied the truth of adverse information. When confronted with increasingly definitive and contradictory information, Smith admitted the truth, but blamed others for his faults. Smith blamed others when confronted with the presence of Williams in hisNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

3 home, improperly using a car seat, and administering corporal punishment on his daughters. Smith continually identified himself as a victim of William s’s behavior. On November 21, 2016, after Connie Williams successfully completed a chemical dependency treatment program, the court dismissed Carrie’s dependency cas e. On December 7, 2016, an Attorney General’s office employee saw Connie Williams at a grocery store with one of John Smith’s older children, J ohn Jr., who was in Smith’s care. On December 8, an unidentified individual saw Williams’s black Honda at Smit h’s residence. When confronted with this information, Smith denied any contact with Williams. He later admitted that Williams resided at his house despite her continued substance abuse and the no contact order. On Christmas Day 2016, law enforcement re sponded to John Smith’s home based on a report of domestic violence. Smith and Connie Williams each accused, in the hearing of officers, the other of using drugs. On December 30, 2016, DCYF filed a second dependency petition as to Carrie following alleg ations of drug use, domestic violence between Connie Williams and John Smith, and the parents’ failure to maintain boundaries with each other. On January 13, 2017, the dependency court held a shelter care hearing and ordered Carrie placed in foster

care. The court found that illicit drugs were present in the homes of both Williams andNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

4 Smith and that neither parent had been honest with the court. The court also found that Smith’s lack of impulse control and poor judgment contributed to domestic violence. Thereafter, DCYF referred Smith for family therapy and mental health counseling. DCYF also ordered Smith to submit to random urinalysis and blood alcohol testing. The court entered another injunction against conta ct between Smith and Williams. Mental he alth and chemical dependency counselor Carla Paullin counseled John Smith after Steven Erickson’s retirement in December 2016. At DCYF’s request, Paullin focused on Smith’s violent behavior. Paullin and Smith worked on Smith’s emotional regulation, manip ulation of others, control of others, codependency, and boundary setting in relationships. The counselor and patient discussed Smith’s self

- centered nature and unstable personality features. In a March 16, 2017 order, the dependency court recognized the ultimate goal of reunification between John Smith and daughter Carrie. The court ordered the following services for Smith: a parenting and attachment assessment, intensified individual mental health sessions, and urinalysis only on reasonab le suspicion. In a March 2017 report, counselor Carla Paullin noted she could not trust John Smith to be honest and to make good decisions. In an April 2017 report, Paullin also wrote that Smith wa s being controlling and manipulative in regard to his relationship wit hNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

5 Connie Williams. Paullin tried to assist Smith to understand that he does not have the power to control William s’s behaviors. John Smith completed a domestic violence evaluation in March 2017 by Tapio Counseling. During the evaluation, Smith admitted to driving dangerously with Connie Williams in the car, swearing at her, refusing to talk to her, issuing commands to her, spying on her, and giving her money only after she begged. The evaluator recommended that Smith participate in one year of domestic violence perpetrator treatment. John Smith initiated a domestic violence perpetrator treatment program with counselor Elizabeth Rief. According to Rief, Smith often failed to appear for treatment in part because of time spent with Connie Williams. Smi th soon ceased treatment. Mental health counselor Linda Wirtz performed a parenting assessment of John Smith with Carrie in April 2017. Wirtz evaluated Smith as possessing good parenting skills and observed a bonded relationship between Carrie and Smith. Carrie felt secure and happy with her father. Smith responded to Carrie’s cues for a bottle, a diaper change, and a nap. On May 30, 2017, John Smith moved the court for an order to place Carrie in his care. In an order denying the motion, the court co mmissioner found that Smith withheld the truth and impulsively made false statements only to attempt to correct them later. TheNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

6 commissioner also found that Connie Williams and Smith violated court orders by seeing each other. The court, nonetheless, rec ognized that Smith possessed the capacity to parent and render sound decisions about discipline. Smith also could provide food a nd clothing for Carrie. The court ordered monitored in

- home visits. By September 2017, counselor Carla Paullin supported tra nsitioning Carrie to John Smith’s care, because Smith never missed an appointment, he always showed care for his children, and he consistently asked what mor e could he do. On October 16, 2017, Connie Williams gave birth to Jane. Although the dependency court had ordered Williams and John Smith to refrain from contact with one another, the paternity results deemed Smith to be Jane’s father. After Jane’s birth, counselor Carla Paullin grew concerned that Smith could not distance himself from the chaos and drama that his relationship with Wi lliams caused. On November 3, 2017, DCYF filed a dependency petition as to Jane because Connie Williams admitted to heroin use during the pregnancy and Jane showed signs of withdrawal from the drug. Jane required medi cal care for thirty days, and health care providers administered Jane morphine while she weaned off heroin. The dependency petition alleged that John Smith placed Jane at risk of harm because of his history of domestic violence with Williams and his lack of transparen cy with DCYF.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

7 After a November 20, 2017 , contested shelter care hearing, the dependency court released Jane to John Smith so long as he provided a negative full

- panel urinalysis and complied with all service requirements and conditions of pr evious court orders in his dependency cases for Carrie and two older children. The shelter care hearing order enjoined John Smith from any contact with Connie Williams, either directly or through third parties. Thereafter , DCYF developed a plan with Smit h, which listed steps he should take if Williams tried to contact him. In January 2018, a visitation supervisor from Love My Child conducted an in

home visit of John Smith and Jane. The supervisor saw female hygiene products and clothing in Smith’s resi dence. When confronted with this information, Smith denied any contact with Connie Williams and claimed the female items belonged to hi s oldest child. On January 27, 2018, family therapist Amanda Clemons and Jane’s guardian ad litem Crystal Ruiz entered , without earlier warning, John Smith’s home. The two found Connie Williams hiding under a pile of laundry. Because of the parents’ contact, DCYF removed Jane from Smith’s care and placed the infant in shelter care. On January 31, 2018, Laura Signorino , the DCYF social worker for both dependency cases, asked John Smith to submit a hair follicle test. Smith’s hair was too short to produce an a dequate sample.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

8 At a February 2, 2018 , permanency planning hearing for Carrie, the dependency court changed Ca rrie’s primary placement plan to adoption. The court based this change on John Smith’s lack of progress and transparency with DCYF. The court found that Smith failed to set boundaries with Connie Williams and failed to keep his children safe. The court emphasized Williams’s continued drug use, the toxic relationship between Smith and Williams, and the couple’s continued contact that violated court orders. On March 23, 2018, the dependency court entered an agreed order of dependency and order of disposi tion for Jane. The disposition and subsequent review orders required Smith to submit to a hair follicle test, submit to random urinalysis, obtain a mental health assessment, follow the recommendations of the mental health assessment, engage in anger
manag ement and domestic violence prevention services, participate in family therapy, and obtain a chemical dependency assessment. Thereafter, John Smith submitted a hair follicle for testing. The sample tested positive for heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamin e. Smith denied the positive results of a hair follicle test to family therapist Amanda Clemons. In April 2018, John Smith began chemical dependency treatment at Spokane Addiction Recovery Center (SPARC)

. In April 2018, social worker Laura Signorino ob served text messages exchanged between Connie Williams and John Smith

.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

9 PROCEDURE On April 25, 2018, DCYF filed a petition to terminate John Smith’s and Connie Williams’s parental rights to Carrie. On May 16, 2018, Smith and Williams married one another despite the ban on any contact. In May 2018, therapist Amanda Clemons discharged John Smith from family therapy. Clemons concluded that Smith knew all of the strategies to make appropriate decisions and to protect his children, but that he refused to i mplement those tactics. On July 6, 2018, the dependency court relieved DCYF of the obligation to provide family counseling t o John Smith. In May 2018, John Smith reinitiated his domestic violence perpetrator treatment program with counselor Elizabeth Ri ef. Smith made some progress through the
treatment. In July 2018, law enforcement arrested John Smith for allegedly striking Connie Williams several times on a public street. Williams suffered a swollen right eyebrow and a scratch on the back of her tr iceps. Williams denied the injuries and refused to be photographed. Smith later pled guilty to assault.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

10 After the July 2018 domestic violence incident, John Smith read a book on codependency. According to counselor Carla Paullin, after Smith read the book, Smith demonstrated some understanding of codependency. In July 2018, John Smith successfully completed his drug addiction treatment program at S PARC

. Michelle Druktenis supervised visits between John Smith and his daughters from August 2018 to Fe bruary 2019. Smith visited the girls three times a week for three hours per visit in Smith’s home, at Druktenis’ office, or in public settings. Druktenis noted no safety concerns at Smith’s home. According to Druktenis, oldest daughter Carrie showed

mor e affection toward Smith. Carrie hugged and kissed her father. Carrie asked for daddy when Druktenis retrieved her from daycare. Because of her infanc y, Jane expressed little affection toward her father, other than sitting on his lap and gi ving him hugs

. On October 16, 2018, DCYF filed a second petition to terminate the parents’ rights to Jane. On January 15, 2019, one of the girls’ foster parents observed John Smith’s attempt to give Connie Williams a ride in his vehicle . S mith sped away when seen. John Smith’s progress in the domestic violence perpetrator treatment program ended with a positive hair follicle test in November 2018 , and with contact with ConnieNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

11 Williams in January 2019. Both events violated Smith’s conditions of treatment. John Sm ith restarted substance abuse treatment at SPARC in January 2019. According to his chemical dependency treatment provider Damien Miller, Smith complied with the program for the two months leading up to trial in March. Miller believed Smith would complete his treatment in April 2019. Both termination cases proceeded to trial in March 2019. At the time of trial, Carrie was three years old and Jane was one and one

- half years old. Connie Williams did not attend trial. During the termination trial, many pr ofessionals testified about the forbidden contact between the parents. The testimony showed that John Smith and Connie Williams maintained continual contact with each other despite o rders banning the interaction. John Smith’s former mental health therapis t, Steven Erickson, testified at trial. Erickson testified that Smith’s misbehavior related to his lack of impulse control. Erickson complimented Smith’s ability to positively interact with his children during their meetings. Erickson could not testify about Smith ’s and Connie Williams’s relationship because neither Smith nor DCYF gave Erickson any information regarding the relationship. Erickson concluded that Smith satisfactorily progressed with Erickson’s treatment, although Smith could still improve on establishi ng boundaries.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

12 Mental health and chemical dependency counselor Carla Paullin testified. Paullin expressed surprise that John Smith’s March 2018 hair follicle test scored positive for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. She also expresse d concern that Smith was not honest with her about the test results. Paullin acknowledged that substance abuse by a parent negatively affects children and may cause problems with placing Carrie and Jane in Smith’s care. According to Paullin, Smith’s prog nosis is guarded because of his continued contact with Connie Williams. Smith knows his relationship with Williams is toxic, yet he continues to see her. Paullin testified that, if Smith wants to parent Carrie and Jane, he needs to work on impulsivity, b oundaries, and transparency. Paullin testified that domestic violence in the home is the number one source of trauma on children. Paullin wishes Smith to forego contact with Williams for one year before either daughter
returns to Smith’s home. Family t herapist Amanda Clemons also testified. Clemons opined that Smith’s willingness to allow his daughters to spend time with Connie Williams, someone consistently under the influence of drugs, harms the girls and endangers their safety. Clemons added that J ohn Smith lacked insight into how his repeatedly engaging in unhealthy relationships, acting impulsively, and lack of honesty with his providersNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

13 harmed his children. Clemons could not support placement of Carrie and Ja ne with Smith. Elizabeth Rief, Joh n Smith’s domestic violence perpetrator treatment program counselor, testified that John Smith did not successfully complete the program. Mental health counselor Linda Wirtz testified that Smith posed a low risk of danger to his dau ghter, Carrie. DCYF s ocial worker Laura Signorino testified that John Smith complied with most services, but he failed to progress as a result of the services. Signorino opined that Smith ha d not corrected his parental deficiencies. According to Signorino, DCYF continued to worry about Smith’s lack of boundaries with Connie Williams, his lack of transparency, his assaults on Williams, his illicit drug use, and his lack of insight into his deficiencies. The domestic violence and drug abuse substantially impacted Smith’s abili ty to protect and care for his daughters. Otherwise, Smith possessed basic parenting skills. Laura Signorino op ined that continuing the parent

- child relationship between Smith and his daughters may confuse the girls and hinder their ability to transition to a p ermanent home. Guardian ad litem Crystal Ruiz testified that, as of March 5, 2019, Carrie and Jane thrived in their respective home placements. She explained that, although the girls resided in different homes, the families met together and the gi rls had play dates.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

14 According to Ruiz, both girls deserved permanency and a chance for a stable life. Despite Carrie’s attachment to Smith, Ruiz did not recommend continued contact between Smith and either of his daughters. John Smith testified at the termination trial that he learned from the services provided by DCYF. He explained that domestic violence is not only physical, but can be financial and emotional. He learned about codependency with Connie Williams and how the phenomena influenced his be havior. He learned that heroin is more addictive than cocaine or alcohol. Smith still denied any assaultive behavior. John Smith testified he went long periods of time without contact with Connie Williams. He did not quantify the time. Smith claimed that Williams occasionally called DCYF and asserted false allegations against him because he refused contact with her. Smith acknowledged that Williams was pregnant again and he might be the biol ogical father. John Smith testified that he w ould no longe r pursue a relationship with Connie Williams because she has chosen heroin over her own children. Smith acknowledged his marriage to Williams in May 2018, but insisted he had file d for divorce. The trial court terminated John Smith’s and Connie Williams ’ parental rights to Carrie and Jane. The court entered the following findings of fact:No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

15

There is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the children can be returned to the parent(s) in the near future.

. . . . The father, Mr. [Smith ], had periods of both compliance and noncompliance with most of his services. However, ultimately, Mr. [ Smith ] has failed to apply the advice provided to him in services to his own life and to the decisions he makes regarding his children’s safety.

. . . .

. . . Ms. Paullin stopped counseling with Mr. [ Smith ] after two years because she felt she had done all she could

— he was not applying the techniques provided in counseling to his life, and any future change would be up to him.

. . . . It is in the c hildren’s best interests to terminate the parent

- child relationship. Ms. [ Williams ] has never remedied her drug issue. Mr. [ Smith ] has not demonstrated that he can put the children first and stay away from Ms. [ Williams ] . The relationship between the tw o parents poses a risk to the children as it has domestic violence threaded through it. It is unhealthy for these children to continue to be exposed to domestic violence and drug use. Each of the children [has] had multiple placements during the dependen cy, it is critical for healthy growth and development that they have stable, permanent homes with consistent caregivers. Clerk’s Papers at 416

- 20. The court also found John Smith currently unfit to parent his children. LAW AND ANALYSIS On appeal, John Smith challenges the sufficiency of evidence to terminate his parental rights to Carrie and Jane. He contends that subst antial evidence did not support (1) a finding of little likelihood that conditions would be remedied so that Carrie and Jane could be returned to him in the near future , (2) that his continued relationship with theNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

16 daughters diminished their prospects for permanency , (3) that termination of his parental rights served Carrie and Jane’s best interests , and (4) that he was an unfit parent. Issue 1: Whether substantial evidence supports the trial court finding of little likelihood that John Smith would remedy his deficiencies so that Carrie and Jane could be returned to him in the near future? Answer 1: Yes. In order to terminate the parent

- c hild relationship, the State must satisfy a two

prong test. In re Dependency of K.N.J. , 171 Wn.2d 568, 576, 257 P.3d 522 (2011). The first prong requires proof of six elements listed in RCW 13.34.180(1). In re Dependency of K.N.J. , 171 Wn.2d at 576. Th ese six statutory 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 re moved 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, reasonabl y 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.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

17 RCW 13.34.180(1)(a)

- (f). The State must prove each ele ment by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights. RCW 13.34.190(1)(a)(i). Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown to be

“ ‘ highly probable. ’ ” In re Dependency of K.R. , 128 Wn .2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (quoting In re Welfare of Sego , 82 Wn.2d 736, 739, 513 P.2d 831 (1973)). Second, the State must show a termination order serves the best interests of the child. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b). The trial court must find by a prepon derance of the evidence that termination furthers the best interests of the child. In re Welfare of M.R.H. , 145 Wn. App

. 10, 24, 188 P.3d 510 (2008). This reviewing court must uphold the trial court’s factual findings if supported by substantial evidence. In re Welfare of Sego , 82 Wn.2d at 739. Because only the trial court has the opportunity to hear the testimony and observe the witnesses, we defer to the trial court’s judgment of the credibility of the witnesses and weighing of the evidence.
In re Dep endency of A.V.D. , 62 Wn. App. 562, 568, 815 P.2d 277 (1991). John Smith does not dispute that the State proved the initial four elements found in RCW 13.34.180(1)(a)

- (d). Instead, Smith assigns error to findings supporting satisfaction of the two elemen t s in RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)

- (f).No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

18 RCW 13.34.180(1)(e) focuses on whether the parent has corrected his identified parenting deficiencies. In re Welfare of M.R.H. , 145 Wn. App. at 27, (2008). RCW 13.34.180(1)(e) additionally reads:

A parent’s failure to subs tantially 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 pa rent in the near future. Even when evidence suggests that the parent may eventually correct parental deficiencies, termination is still appropriate when deficiencies will not be corrected within the foreseeable future. In re Dependency of A.W. , 53 Wn. A pp . 22, 32, 765 P.2d 307 (1988). The court determines the “near future” in RCW 13.34.180(1)(e) from the child’s vantage point. In re Dependency of A.C. , 123 Wn. App. 244, 249, 98 P.3d 89 (2004). What constitutes “near future” depends on the age of the ch ild and the circumstances of the child’s placement. In re Dependency of T.L.G. , 126 Wn. App. 181, 205, 108 P.3d 156 (2005). For a younger child, a shorter period constitutes the “near future” than it does for an older child. See In re Welfare of C.B. , 1 34 Wn. App. 942, 954, 143 P.3d 846 (2006) A matter of months for young children is not within the foreseeable future to determine if there is sufficient time for a parent to remedy his or her parental deficiency. In re Welfare of M.R.H. , 145 Wn. App. at 28. One year was not in th e foreseeable future of a three

-No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

19 year - old. In re Dependency of A.W. , 53 Wn. App. at 32. Six months was not foreseeable in the near future of a fifteen

- month

- old. In re Dependency of P.D. , 58 Wn. App. 18, 27, 792 P.2d 159 (1990)

. John Smith contends that, at the time of trial, he participated in ordered services, he showed an understanding of his toxic relationship with Connie Williams, he intended not to contact her, and he last contacted Williams in August 2018. Substantial t estimony belies his contentions. Experts testified that Smith had failed to comprehend his codependent toxic relationship with Williams. According to mental health counselor Carla Paullin, Smith knew his relationship with Williams was toxic, yet he conti nued to see her. Paullin testified that, if Smith wanted to parent Carrie and Jane, he needed to work on impulsivity, boundaries, and transparency. Paullin wished Smith to forego contact with Williams for one year before either daughter returns to Smith’ s home. Counselor Amanda Clemons ended counseling after two years because Smith was not amenable to services. Clemons testified that Smith lack ed insight into the impact on the girls of the domestic violence between Williams and him. Smith recently test ed positive for heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Despite court orders precluding contact, Smith married Williams in May 2018. He assaulted Williams in July 2018. Two months before the termination trial, Smith attempted to give Wi lliams a ride in h is vehicle.No s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

20 Issue 2: Whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that continuation of the parent

- child relationship diminished Carrie and Jane’s prospects for early permanency? Answer 2: Yes. John Smith contends that insufficient eviden ce supports the trial court’s finding that continuing his parent

- child relationship with his daughters diminishes their chances of early integration into a stable and permanent home. He also contends that he could continue contact with children without ca using destabilization or affecting their cur rent placements. We disagree. Under RCW 13.34.180(1)(f), DCYF must prove that “continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child’s prospects for early integration into a stable and p ermanent home.” This termination element focuses on the parent

- child relationship and whether it impedes the child’s prospects for integration, not what constitutes a stable and permanent home. In re Dependency of K.D.S. , 176 Wn.2d 644, 658, 294 P.3d 695 (2013). This factor addresses the continued effect of the legal relationship between parent and child as an obstacle to adoption. In re Dependency of A.C. , 123 Wn. App. at 250 (2004). Fulfillment is strongest when children have potential adoption resou rces. In re Dependency of A.C. , 123 Wn. App. at 250. DCYF can satisfyNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

21 RCW 13.34.180(1)(f) in one of two ways. First, DCYF can prove prospects for a permanent home exist, but the parent

- child relationship prevents the child from obtaining that placement

. In re Parental Rights to J.B. , 197 Wn. App. 430, 438, 387 P.3d 1152 (2016). Alternatively, DCYF can prove the parent

- child relationship has a damaging and destabilizing impact on the child that would hinder the child’s integration into any permanent an d stable placement. In re Parental Rights to J.B. , 197 Wn. App. at 438. The trial court found that continuing John Smith’s parent

- child relationship with Carrie and Jane clearly diminishe d their prospects for early integration into a permanent and stable home. Substantial evidence supports this finding. At the time of trial, both girls resided in permanent adoptive homes. The potential adoptive parents meet the girls’ needs. Social worker Laura Signorino opined that continuing the parent

- child relation ship between Smith and his daughters may confuse the girls and hinder their ability to mov e on to have a permanent home. Issue 3: Whether substantial evidence supports the trial court finding that terminating their father’s parent rights furthered Ca rrie a nd Jane’s best interests? Answer 3: Yes. After satisfying the first prong, proof of the six elements listed in RCW 13.34.180(1), the second step in the State’s burden in a parental termination case involvesNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

22 establishing by a preponderance of evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b). We accord the trial court broad discretion in determining the best interests of the child. In re Welfare of Young , 24 Wn. App. 392, 395, 600 P.2d 1312 (1979). No specific factors are inv olved in a best interest determination, and each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. In re Welfare of M.R.H. , 145 Wn. App. at 28 (2008). Nevertheless, when a parent has not remedied parental deficiencies over a lengthy dependency per iod, a court is 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 seeks further rehabilitation. In re Dependency of T.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 16 7, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001); In re Dependency of A.W. , 53 Wn. App

. at 33, (1988). John Smith first argues the trial court’s best interest finding was premature because the State failed to prove all the factors in RCW 13.34.180. We disagree with the premise of this argument since we already held that substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings o f all factors. John Smith next contends substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s best interest finding. We disagree again. The trial testimo ny showed that Smith continued toNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

23 put his relationship with Connie Williams before his care of his children. The toxic relationship harms the children. Williams’ s drug a buse endangered the daughters. Issue 4: Whether substantial evidence supports the tri al court’s finding that John Smith was currently unfit to parent? Answer 4: Yes. In addition to finding that the six statutory elements of RCW 13.34.180(1) have been satisfied and the best interests of the children are served, due process protections requi re 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). Satisfaction of the six statutory elements raises an implied finding of parental unfitn ess. In re Dependency of K.N.J. , 171 Wn.2d at 577. To meet its burden to prove current unfitness, DCYF is required to prove that the parent’s parenting deficiencies prevent the parent from providing for the child’s basic nurture, health, or safety by cle ar, cogent, and convincing evidence. In re Welfare of A.B. , 181 Wn. App. 45, 61, 323 P.3d 1062 (2014). Strong evidence supports the trial court’s finding that John Smith is an unfit parent. According to experts, Smith lacks understanding of how his conti nued contact with Connie Williams places his children at risk. D ue to his repeated pattern of returning to Williams , the court cannot trust Smith’s promises that he intends to halt any futureNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

24 contact with Williams

. Smith cannot protect his children from their mother. Smith continues to engage in impulsive and violent behavior. We agree with Smith that he exhibits nurturing skills, but those skills do not hold priorit y over his other deficiencies. John Smith relies on In re Welfare of A.B. , 181 Wn. App. 45, 64

- 65, 323 P.3d 1062 (2014), while claiming he is fit to parent because of the presence of no immediate or severe risks to Carrie and Jane’s safety. In A.B. , this court found DSHS failed to meet its burden to prove the mother was currently unfit, when , although her cognitive impairment interfered with her ability to identify subtle safety risks to her child, no immediate or severe risks threatened the child’s safety. The child had been removed f rom the home due to a safety risk posed by the father’s a busive behavior, and the mother removed the risk by leaving the relationship. In re Welfare of A.B. , 181 Wn. App. at 64. While relying on A.B. , Smith contends that any safety risks to his children are subtle, not serious. We disagree. Both Amanda Clemon s and Carla Paullin identified the serious, lifelong safety concerns resulting from domestic violence. Paullin testified that domestic violence traumatically effects children even more than drugs and neglect. These are not “s ubtle risks.” CONCLUSION
We a ffirm the trial court’s termination of John Smith’s parental rights to CarrieNo s . 36948

- 0

- III; 36949

- 8

- III

In re Dependency of X.S.

25 and Jane. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2. 06.040.

_________________________________ Fearing, J. WE CONCUR:

______________________________ Lawrence

- Berrey, J.

______________________________ Pennell, C. J.