IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of G.G., JR., b.d. 11/07/04, J.D.G., b.d. 09/30/03, S.M.M., b.d. 11/23/99, Minor Children.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

ITZEL JIMINEZ SALAZAR, Appellant. No. 71241-1-1 consolidated with No. 71242-0-1 and No. 71243-8-1

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITHDRAWING & REPLACING OPINION
Appellantfiled a motion for reconsideration ofthe court's December 1, 2014 opinion. Legal Voice filed an amicus briefin support ofappellant's motion. Respondent Department ofSocial and Health Services filed an answer. The court has considered the motion, the amicus brief, and the answer and determined that reconsideration should be denied, butthat the opinion should be withdrawn and a replacement opinion filed. The opinion has been changed by replacing the first fullparagraph on page 17 with the following: 

### "Salazar next challenges the court's finding that her poor relationship choices render her unfit to parent. The trial courtfound:2.24 The mother's parental deficiencies included impaired judgment in her relationship choices, which is likely a result of her cognitive impairments. The mother's relationship choices 

### place her and her children at risk ofdomestic violence.[fn] The record supports this finding. Although domestic violence victims face great challenges, a parent must exercise goodjudgmentto avoid genuine risk ofharm to her children. Here, the focus ofthe trial court's finding was not based on Salazar's status as a domestic violence victim; itwas herfailure to make appropriate choices and participate in recommended services to address parental deficiencies related to domestic violence trauma that placed her children at risk of harm. Fn. Clerk's Papers at 11." The opinion was further changed on page 18 by deleting from the fourth sentence inthe first fullparagraph the phrase "and that she was later involved in

a domestic violence incident where she was found to be intoxicated." Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that appellant's motion for reconsideration is denied. It is further 

### ORDERED thatthe opinion of this courtfiled December 1, 2014 is withdrawn and
a replacement opinion is filed. 

### Datedthis ( day ofFebruary, 2015.



# IAcAoW ~J CJ-l ••"I \ m P". __.

t V0 -s-:c ---V "•„ rr'-- rnT— \° i5 ~'': CO /";20 * r r* r- r* /s
. . . _ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of G.G., JR., b.d. 11/07/04, J.D.G., b.d. 09/30/03, S.M.M.,b.d. 11/23/99, Minor Children.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

v. ITZEL JIMINEZ SALAZAR, Appellant. No. 71241-1-1 consolidated with No. 71242-0-1 and No. 71243-8-1

PUBLISHED OPINION FILED: February 9, 2015 Verellen, A.C.J.

— Itzel Jiminez Salazar appeals from an orderterminating 

### her parental rights to herthree children. She contends that she was deprived ofher 

### right to counsel ofchoice when the trial court denied her motion for a continuanceto hire private counsel. But because she had not selected substitute counsel and failed to show that she had the ability to obtain substitute counsel, the trial court did not violate her right to counsel ofchoice or abuse its discretion. She further challenges 

### the court's finding that she was unfit to parent. Becausethe record supports the court's finding ofunfitness, her challenge to the termination order is without basis. Accordingly, we affirm.No. 71241-1-1/2

FACTS Itzel Jiminez Salazargave birth to S.M. on November23, 1999, when she was 

### 15 years old. S.M.'s father was not involved with S.M. and ultimatelyrelinquished his parental rights. Salazar lived with her motherduring this time but eventually moved 

### out of her mother's home with S.M. when she was 17 years old. According to 

### Salazar, her motherphysically and verballyabused her while she was a minorliving in her home. Salazar had two more children with Gerardo Guizar, whom she married in 2003. J.G. was born on September 30, 2003, and G.G. was born on November7, 2004. During the marriage, there were several incidents ofdomestic violence requiring police intervention and, in2005, Salazar left Guizar and obtained a 

### protection order against him. That same year, Salazar sent S.M. to live with her mother because she was unable to care for all three children. By 2009 or 2010, Salazar, J.G., and G.G. had moved in with Salazar's mother 

### and S.M. Sometime in2010, Salazarmoved outofher mother's home, taking J.G. and G.G. with her. She left S.M. to remain living inthe home with her motherand her younger brother. In March 2011, J.G. and G.G. disclosed to Salazarthatthey had 

### been sexually assaulted by Salazar's brotherwhile they were living with hermother. Salazar reported this to the police and Child Protective Services (CPS), but she did
not remove S.M. from her mother's home. Salazar's brother continued to live in the home and pleaded guilty to assaulting J.G. and G.G. in 2012. In June 2011, Salazar left J.G. and G.G. in her roommate's care while she was at work as a cocktail waitress. After her shift, she drank until she blacked out and didNo. 71241-1-1/3


### not return home that night. The next morning, her roommate called the police and CPS when she was unable to locate Salazar. All three children were taken into protective custody and placed in foster care. 

### On June 10, 2011, the State filed a dependency petition. On July 27, 2011, the courtfound the children dependent as to Salazar and maintained the children's 

### placement inout-of-home care.1 The court also ordered remedial services and 

### required Salazarto participate in a drug/alcohol evaluation, random urinalysis testing (UA) and parenting classes. The order allowed Salazarto have a minimum of two 

### hours supervised visitation once perweek. From October2011 to December2012, Department ofSocial and Health 

### Services (Department) social worker MatthewShawworkedwith Salazarto comply withthe court-ordered service requirements. He referred her to service providers and 

### scheduled weekly meetings with her, but she often failed to showfor the meetings and never provided proofthat she participated inany ofthe services. Salazar had 

### not participated inintensive outpatient alcohol treatment as recommended by the court-ordered evaluation. In fact, she told Shawthat she was working as a cocktail waitress in a bar and asked that he not share that information with her treatment 

### provider. And while she claimed to be involved in parenting classes, she never provided Shaw any proofofher participation. Salazar's visitation with her children during this time was inconsistent. She had weekly two-hour visits scheduled with them but struggled with logistics and was


### 1The court also found the children dependent as to the father on September 22, 2011.No. 71241-1-1/4


### often late or failed to appearfor visits, causing stress forthe children and escalation 

### of their behavior. Shaw spent a considerable amount of time addressing visitation logistics with littlechange in Salazar's behavior. 

### Shaw gave Salazar referrals forcourt-ordered mental health counseling, but 

### Salazardid notparticipate incounseling. She wouldeitherdeny needing counseling or falsely reportthat she was participating incounseling or trying to. She never provided documentation ofher participation, nor were any ofthe providers able to confirm that she had kept appointments or completed intakes. All three children received services. J.G. required more extensive services 

### due to her extreme behaviors.2 When Shaw attempted to explain to Salazarthe severity ofthe children's behaviors, she was overwhelmed. According to Shaw, Salazar needed to play an active engaged role in trying to stabilize the children's behaviors intheir placements; but instead, she simply reacted and lacked an
awareness ofthe severity oftheirtrauma. She constantly struggled to set limits with them and escalated their behavior by failing to be on time orto show up for the visits. 

### J.G. was particularly traumatized by Salazar's missed visits. She was assaultive at times and often took weeks to recover after a missed visit. Because Salazar's transient involvement was too disruptive to the treatmentteam working to stabilize the children, she was never introduced into the children's therapy. InJuly 2012, the court ordered that visitation be reduced to a single two-hourvisit per month, finding it necessary to protectthe children's health, safety and welfare.


### 2J.G. required hospitalized inpatient psychiatric care and was later placed in a behavior rehabilitation services center after an unsuccessful placementwith S.M.No. 71241-1-1/5
In September 2012, Shaw recommended that Salazar participate in a second alcohol evaluation. He did so based on concerns about herfailure to participate in alcohol treatment and involvement in a domestic violence incident where she was found to be intoxicated in March 2012. Salazar completed the evaluation, but no treatment recommendations were made, leading Shaw to believe that she may not have been honest in this evaluation. On December 12, 2012, the court held a permanency planning hearing. The 

### courtfound that Salazar had only partially complied with court-ordered services as she had completed a drug/alcohol evaluation but had not participated in parenting classes ormental health counseling. The court also found that Salazar had not visited the children on a consistent basis, noting that she only recently resumed visits 

### after not visiting for overfive months. Inaddition to the previously-ordered services, the court ordered a psychological evaluation with a parenting component. The court further ordered that the Department make a referral for termination of her parental rights by January 15, 2013. InJanuary 2013, social worker Sanna Olsen was assigned to Salazar's case. Salazardeclined to participate inweekly meetings with Olsen and only metwith her 

### every other month and by telephone and e-mail. Olsen referred Salazarto Dr. Michael O'Leary for the psychological evaluation. In March and April of2013, O'Leary conducted an evaluation which included 

### psychological testing, a clinical interview, and a parent-child observation. O'Leary concluded that Salazar had impaired functioning in areas involving her ability to 

### organize a household, to timely meet herobligations, and to remember instructions.No. 71241-1-1/6


### He determined that she had limitedcognitive functioning which may have been caused by complex trauma she experienced growing up in an abusive environment. 

### He concluded that she would need to participate in very intensive psychiatric and mental health care for two to four years to overcome the trauma. He identified her 

### parenting deficiencies to include cognitive problems, a pervasive distrust and suspicion ofothers' motives, and willingness to accept abusive behaviorfrom others. 

### He concluded that Salazarwas "marginally capable of providing an adequately stable, structured, safe, and consistently nurturing environmentfor herchildren at this time."3

### O'Leary recommended that she participate intrauma-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). O'Leary also concluded that she would benefitfrom parenting instruction, such as a parenting coach. Olsen referred Salazarto 

### community agencies offering CBT, but she did not participate in any such therapy despite her representations to Olsen that she was doing so. Olsen did not offer the 

### parent coaching service recommended by O'Leary since Salazarwas not regularly attending hervisits, the setting in which parent coaching would need to occur. During Olsen's time on the case, Salazarcontinued to struggle with keeping her visit appointments and in five months had only two visits with J.G., one ofwhich was part ofthe psychological evaluation. During the visits, she was unable to set limits and effectively manage the children's behavior. On April 4, 2013, the State filed a petition for termination ofthe parent-child relationship. On May 9, 2013, the court held a review hearing and found Salazarin

3 Ex. 22 at 16.No. 71241-1-1/7 partial compliance as she had completed the psychological evaluation, but also found that she had not confirmed herparticipation in counseling or parenting classes, had not attended meetings relating to her children or visited her children since December 14, 2012, and had not met with Olsen since February 2013. The court then ordered that she attend all meetings regarding her children, follow recommendations ofthe psychological evaluation, including obtaining a sponsor, attending 12-step meetings, and participating in CBT counseling, domestic violence support groups, and the children's therapy as recommended. Salazar never provided Olsen with any evidence that she participated inthese services. Inmid-May 2013, Salazar's case was transferred to social worker Morgan White. InJune 2013, White metwith Salazar, and they discussed services. Salazar reported that she had attended counseling and completed her parenting class, but she did not present any documentation ofthis participation. White also asked herto 

### complete a UAthat day, but she leftwithoutdoing so. At a second meeting, White discussed Dr. O'Leary's recommendations, and Salazar reported that she was working with her attorney and thatthey had located a CBT therapist. She also 

### agreed to participate in a UA but then did not do so. White also provided Salazar with a complete list ofrequired services and available community resources that provide those services. On September 18, 2013, the court held a permanency planning hearing. The 

### courtfound Salazar inpartial compliance ofthe ordered services as she had 

### completed a parenting class on May 16, 2013. Butthe court also found that she had not participated in individual counseling, domestic violence support groups, trauma-No. 71241-1-1/8 

### based CBTsessions, family counseling, 12-step groups, had notobtained a sponsor, and had not attended all meetings regarding herchildren. The termination trial was setfor October28, 2013. On October22, 2013, the 

### parties appeared for a preliminary hearing, and counsel forthe Department noted that "the mother may have an issue with appointment ofcounsel."4 The court declined to consider the matter because it had not been noted on the calendar. 

### On October28, 2013, the parties appeared for trial and the court asked 

### Salazar's attorney, Susan Harness, about a possible motion to continue. Harness reported that Salazar had contacted herthe day before the preliminary hearing and 

### had asked her to make a motion to withdraw. Harness stated that she had spoken to 

### Salazarsince then and that itwas her desire to have Harness withdraw and request
a continuance forSalazarto hire new counsel. The court asked Salazarfor her input. Salazarstated that she feltthat she hadn't been well represented and that she wanted hertherapistto testify, butthatthe therapist was not available for two weeks. 

### The court also asked Salazarifshe had found a replacement lawyer. Salazar said she met with one lawyer that she did not wantto hire and that she was planning to meetwith two more thatweek. She could not provide the names ofthe lawyers. The court then asked herto elaborate aboutthe therapistthat might be a potential witness. She provided only herfirst name and said she worked in Lynnwood or Edmonds. Harness told the courtthat she wished to continue representing Salazarand that she was prepared to go forward. She also said thatthis was the first time she
Report of Proceedings (RP) (Oct. 22, 2013) at 2.

8No. 71241-1-1/9
had been given the contact information for the therapist butthat she would call her as
a witness ifshe could contact her. The Department and the attorneys for S.M. and the guardian ad litem (GAL) all objected to the continuance, citing undue delay and 

### the children's need for permanency. The Departmentalso stated thatthis was the first ithad been made aware ofthe possible therapist witness. 

### The court denied the motion, noting thatthe dependency had been pending for more than 27 months, thatthe termination had also been pending for some time, and that everyone was aware ofthis trial date. Indeed, Salazar had known ofthe trial 

### date for four months. The court also concluded thatthere was no basis for allowing Salazar to hire new counsel and remove Harness from the case: The stated reason essentially is that mother is not sure and comfortable 

### aboutthe representation provided by Ms. Harness. That really does not rise to the level to have appointed counsel relieved. As Ithink has been attested to by others, Ms. Harness is an experienced and competent attorney inthese kind of matters. There really is nothing that has been provided inthe record here which would indicate to the contrary as to this particular case. The motherhas indicated a desire to hire alternative counsel, but this comes on essentiallythe morning oftrial, and there are no specific names offered oreven an indication that she has met with these individuals. So that is ratherspeculative in nature. Perhaps the biggest concern is the prospect ofthis potential witness for the mother, the therapist. Although, one notes that according to the motherthis therapist has only been involved inthe case for the last couple months itsounds like. So, there may be limitations in terms of hertestimony. But the Court would be inclined nonetheless to make accommodations to try to ensure ... at least the possibility of her being heard from. Accordingly, the Courtwould be inclined, for example, to allow telephonic testimony regarding that therapist. And ifthat proves simply impossible, to at least consider possible alternatives. Although, again, this is a case that has been 

### pending trial for some time. Again, this is a rather new development itNo. 71241-1-1/10 

### sounds like in terms of [the]possibility of her being a potential witness. 

### And, as noted, her testimonyIgatherwould be ratherlimited in scope.15! The courtthen took a short recess to allow Harness time to conferwith Salazar. 

### When courtreconvened, Harness indicated that she was ready to proceed. 

### Afterhearing testimonyfrom Salazar, the threesocialworkers, Dr. O'Leary, and the GAL, the court granted the termination petition. The court found that Salazar 

### had parentaldeficiencies of drug and alcohol abuse, cognitive limitations thatimpact her ability to safely parentand make choices in the children's best interests, an 

### inabilityto providestability and consistency, a lack of insight of her children's needs 

### and herown parentingdeficits, and impairedjudgmentin herrelationship choices which places her children at risk of domestic violence. The courtfurther found that all 

### services capable ofcorrecting the parental deficiencies were offered and that Salazar chose notto participate inthem. The court concluded thatthere was little likelihood conditions would be remedied such that the children could be returned her in the


### nearfuture, that Salazarwas unfitto parent currently and in the foreseeable future, and that she was incapable of providingthe children a permanentand stable home. Salazar appeals. ANALYSIS 

### Salazarcontends that bydenying her continuance to retain private counsel, the trial court violated her constitutional right to counsel ofchoice. The Department responds thatthe right to counsel ofchoice applies only to criminal prosecutions, not 

### civil proceedings to terminate parental rights, and therefore, Salazar's claim of a


### 5RP (Oct. 28, 2013) at 18-19 (emphasis added).

10No. 71241-1-1/11 

### constitutional deprivation is withoutbasis. The Departmentthen argues that the trial court's denial of the continuance was a properexercise of discretion given the untimeliness of the request. We agree that the trial court properly exercised its discretion by denying the continuance. 

### Salazaracknowledges thatWashington lawhas not specifically addressed 

### whether a parent in a proceeding brought by the Stateto terminate parental rights has a rightto retain counsel of choice. Instead, she relies on case lawinterpreting the constitutional rightto counsel of choice incriminal prosecutions guaranteed by the Sixth Amendmentto the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 ofthe Washington State Constitution. 

### In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez.6 the Supreme Court recognized that an elementofthe SixthAmendment right to counsel isthe right of a defendantwho does not require appointed counsel to choose who to represent him. The Court concluded 

### that "the right at stake here is the right to counsel ofchoice, notthe right to a fair 

### trial,"7 and "that the accused be defended by the counsel he believes to be best."8 Thus, when assessing a requestforsubstitute counsel, an inquiry into the effectiveness ofthe counsel soughtto be replaced or the prejudice to the defendant bythat counsel's representation was unwarranted and improper.9 Rather, the court held thatdeprivation of this rightoccurs "when the defendant is erroneously



### 6548 U.S. 140, 144, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 LEd.2d 409 (2006). 7 Id at 146. 

### 8]d at 140. 9 Id. at 148.

11No. 71241-1-1/12 prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless ofthe quality of 

### the representation he received."10 In State v. Hampton,11 this court recently applied Gonzalez-Lopez to findsuch
a deprivation in a criminal case. Indoing so, the court rejected the analysis used in 

### State v. Price12 and State v. Roth13 to evaluate a trialcourt's decision to deny a request for a continuance to obtain substitute counsel. Because the Roth-Price analysis required an inquiry into the legitimacy ofthe defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel and the potential for identifiable prejudice to the defendant, it did not comply 

### withGonzalez-Lopez and was therefore improper.14 In Hampton, the trial court denied the defendant's requestfor a continuance to 

### allow his newly retained private counsel to have time to prepare his case.15 In doing so, the trial court considered the defendant's dissatisfaction with his appointed 

### counsel, counsel's effectiveness, and the potential prejudice tothe defendant.16 This court reversed, holding that under Gonzalez-Lopez, the trial court improperly considered those factors to deny the continuance, requiring the defendantto proceed 

### with appointed counsel inviolation of his right to counsel ofchoice.17

°ld 

### 1 Wn. App. , 332 P.3d 1020 (2014). 2 126 Wn. App. 617, 109 P.3d 27 (2005). 375 Wn. App. 808, 881 P.2d 268 (1994). 4 Hampton. 332 P.3d at 1029. 5 Id at 1025. 

### 6]d at 1030. 7 Id. at 1030-31.

12No. 71241-1-1/13 

### Salazarsimilarly argues that shewas deprived of her rightto counsel of choice when the trial court denied her a continuance to obtain private counsel after 

### considering the legitimacy of her dissatisfaction with and the competence of appointed counsel. The Department contends that because the Sixth Amendment 

### rightto counsel of choice applies only to criminal prosecutions, notproceedings to terminate parental rights, the Gonzalez-Lopez analysis does not apply here. In Washington, RCW 13.34.090(2) provides the right to counsel in termination proceedings, a right derived fromthe due process guarantees of article I, section 3 of the Washington Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.18 While the 

### Departmentis correct that a parent's rightto counsel in termination proceedings does not derive from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applicable in criminal prosecutions, this is a distinction of no consequence. Whetherthe right to counsel in 

### termination proceedings is derived from the SixthAmendment ordue process guarantees, the parent's right to hire the attorney oftheir choice is inherent inthe right to counsel. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the right to assistance of 

### counsel necessarily includes this right to counsel of choice: "It is hardly necessaryto



### 18 In re Luscier's Welfare. 84 Wn.2d 135, 138, 524 P.2d 906 (1974); Inthe Matter ofWelfare ofJ.M..130Wn. App. 912. 921. 125 P.3d 245 (2005). The Department noted at oral argumentthat in Lassiterv. Dep't ofSoc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981), the United States Supreme Court concluded that it is up to the states to determine the due process standards for 

### counsel intermination cases. Our courts have recognized that "'thefull panoply of due process safeguards applies to deprivation hearings'" and thatthe right to counsel in parental termination proceedings derives from constitutional due process provisions. JLM., 130Wn. App. at 921 (quoting Luscier. 84 Wn.2d at 137). Lassiter does not diminish the vitality ofthe due process based right to counsel intermination proceedings.

13No. 71241-1-1/14
saythatthe right ofcounsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair 

### opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice."19 The right ofcounsel in termination proceedings established by statute and derived from constitutional due 

### process provisions necessarily includes the right to counsel ofchoice. But as recognized in Hampton, a court also retains the right to control its calendar, and the ability ofthe parentto secure substitute counsel is critical to the 

### exercise ofthe right to choose retained or volunteer counsel.20 Here, there was no motion to substitute counsel; Salazar had not reached any agreementwith any attorney, retained or volunteer, to represent her inthe termination trial. Salazarfiled only a motion for a continuance to delay the trial and allow herto interview two attorneys she had notyet met. The trial court asked careful questions and determined: Salazarwanted to 

### retain substitute counsel but had not yet done so; she interviewed one attorney but did not wantthat attorney to represent her; she planned to interview two other attorneys within the next week but could not give the trial courtthe names ofthose attorneys as she did not have their names with her; the dependency had been pending for 27 months; the termination trial had been scheduled. Salazar knew of the trial date for four months. The Department, the GAL, and counsel for S.M. all opposed a continuance on the ground that the children should not be forced to wait longerfor the courtto determine whether a termination should be granted.



### 19 Powell v. State of Ala.. 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L Ed. 158 (1932). 20Hampton. 332 P.3d at 1028.

14No. 71241-1-1/15
Consistent with the observations in Hampton, the trial court announced that 

### because the motion came at the start ofthe scheduled trial,21 "there are no specific
names offered or even an indication that she has metwith these individuals," so the 

### request "is rather speculative in nature."22 IfSalazar had had new counsel presentwith her atthe time ofher motion or 

### could otherwise documentthat she had obtained new counsel to represent her, then 

### she could have filed a motion to substitute the new counsel ratherthan merely askfor a continuance to try to find someone otherthan her appointed counsel to represent her. 

### Insuch a setting, the trial court could then considerthe impactofany delay upon the interests ofthe children. Because Salazar had not selected new counsel and failed to show she had the ability to obtain substitute counsel, the trial courtdid not frustrate 

### Salazar's right to counsel ofchoice or abuse itsdiscretion by denying a continuance. Salazar also contends thatthe record does not supportthe trial court's finding 

### ofunfitness based on her parental deficiencies ofcognitive impairment, poor relationship choices that put her children at risk ofdomestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and a lack of insight about her children's needs. We disagree. 

### Acourt may ordertermination ofparental rights when shown by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that (1) the child has been found dependent, (2) the child has been removed from the parent for at least six months as a result ofthe dependency, (3) all necessary services, reasonably available, capable ofcorrecting



### 21 Even ifwe considerthe motion "raised" at the preliminary hearing one week before trial, that was still on the eve oftrial. 22 (RP)(Oct. 23, 2013) at 19.

15No. 71241-1-1/16
the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided, (4) there is little likelihood that conditions willbe remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the nearfuture, and (5) that continuation ofthe parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's 

### prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.23 Although not an explicit statutory element, the court must also find by clear, cogent and convincing 

### evidence that a parent is currently unfit before terminating parental rights.24 We give the trial court's decision great deference and will uphold its findings offact ifthey are 

### supported by substantial evidence.25 Salazarfirst contends that the evidence did not establish that her cognitive limitations directly impacted her ability to parent, citing case law holding that proofof 

### cognitive impairments alone is insufficient to support a finding of fitness.26 She points to evidence that she was capable ofprotecting herchildren by ending a violent relationship with her husband and by reporting her brother's sexual abuse ofJ.G. and G.G. But the following unchallenged findings offact, now verities on appeal, support 

### the court's findings that Salazar's cognitive impairments impacted her ability to parent and that her refusal to actively participate in services to remediate this deficiency rendered her unfit to parent currently or inthe foreseeable future:



### 23 RCW 13.34.180(1). 24 In re Dependency of K.R.. 128 Wn.2d 129, 142, 904 P.2d 1132(1995). 25 In re Dependency of K.S.C.. 137 Wn.2d 918, 925, 976 P.2d 113 (1999). 26 See In re Welfare ofA.B.. 181 Wn. App. 45, 65, 323 P.3d 1062(2014).

16No. 71241-1-1/17


### 2.47 In his psychological evaluation, Dr. O'Leary recommended that the mother participate intrauma focused cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). On June 6, 2013, the current social worker 

### Morgan White met with the motherand specificallydiscussed the recommendation for CBT. Ms. White identified agencies that offer CBT, although she did not identify specific counselors. 

### 2.48 The mother toldMs. White that her attorney arrangedfor the motherto attend CBT with a qualifiedtherapist. Duringmeetings in July and September, the mothercontinued to representto the social workerthat she was incounseling; she was not.[27]



### 2.51 The mother completed a psychological evaluation withDr. Michael O'Leary inApril 2013. Dr. O'Learythe mother has significantdevelopmental and cognitive problems that are a 

### barrier to the acquisition ofadaptive and appropriate parenting behaviors. Heconcluded itwas highlyunlikely the motherwould remediate her parenting deficiencies withoutfull and vigorous participation in services. 

### 2.52 In his evaluation, Dr. O'Leary recommended reunification contingent on adequate demonstration ofthe mother's participation in and benefitfrom recommended services. At trial 

### Dr. O'Leary recommended termination ofparental rights based on the mother's failure to actively participate inservices.[28] 

### Salazar next challenges the court's findingthat her poor relationship choices render her unfit to parent. The trial courtfound: 

### 2.24 The mother's parental deficiencies included impairedjudgmentin her relationship choices, which is likely a result of her cognitive impairments. The mother's relationship choices place her and her children at risk ofdomestic violence.'291 

### The record supports this finding. Although domestic violence victims face great challenges, a parent must exercise goodjudgmentto avoid genuine risk ofharm to 

### 27 Clerk's Papers at 12. 

### 28 Clerk's Papers at 13. 29 Clerk's Papers at 11.

17No. 71241-1-1/18 

### her children. Here, the focus ofthe trialcourt's findingwas not based on Salazar's status as a domestic violence victim; itwas herfailure to make appropriate choices and participate inrecommended services to address parental deficiencies related to domestic violence trauma that placed her children at risk ofharm. 

### Salazaralso challenges the court's finding that drug and alcohol issues were a deficiency that contributed to her parental unfitness. This finding is supported bythe record. It is undisputed that her children ended up inprotective custody because she went on a drinking binge, blacked out, and leftthe children with a roommate. Salazar's drug and alcohol evaluator recommended intensive treatment. Salazar admitted to Shawthat she took ajob at a bar as a cocktail waitress despite this treatment recommendation. While Salazar points to the fact thatthe second alcohol evaluation made no treatment recommendations, Shaw testified that he had
concerns about her lack of honesty. The trial courtwas entitled to find Shaw credible
on this point. Finally, Salazarchallenges the court's finding that she lacked insight about her children's needs to the extentthat she was unfit to parent. This finding is supported by the record. Shawtestified that "there was a lack on the mother's part of
awareness about the severity ofthe children's trauma," and while all the professionals working to stabilize the children needed herto "play an active engaged role," she was instead "constantly reacting," was "often late failing or missed 

### visitations which escalated the children in their respective . . . placements."30 Indeed,

30 Id. at 93.

18No. 71241-1-1/19



### as noted above, the court eventually reduced hervisits due to the harmful impacton the children. Still, she did not change her behavior and further limited her 

### engagementwith the children, failing to visitthem at all between May and November of 2012. 

### Even ifany one ofthese findings alone did not support a finding ofunfitness, the remaining unchallenged findings offact and the record as a whole support parental unfitness and the order oftermination. The trial courtfound credible the 

### evidence presented attrial that Salazar had parental deficiencies rendering her incapable of providing a stable, safe home for the children, that services were offered 

### to help remedy these deficiencies, and that she consistently failed to participate in the required services. We affirm.

WE CONCUR:


# IA <Mz v 4 

# .sfAjfrtjf.

19