IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE In the Matter ofthe Dependency of T.S., DOB 01/28/13, and T.T.M., DOB 11/14/08, Minor Children.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

WILLIE L. MATHEWS, Appellant. No. 72928-4-I consolidated with No. 72929-2-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: July 20, 2015
Verellen, A.C.J. — WillieMathews appeals the termination ofher parental rights to her two children. She contends that the order terminating her parent-child 

### relationships must be reversed because the Department of Social and Health Services (Department) failed to prove several statutory factors by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Substantial evidence supports the trial court's explicit and implicitfindings that the Department offered or provided all necessary services capable ofcorrecting her parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future, that she was currently unfit to parent,No. 72928-4-1/2
and that there was little likelihood that her parental deficiencies would be remedied in the near future. We affirm the termination order. FACTS Ms. Mathews is the mother of T.M., a daughter born on November 14, 2008, and T.S., a son born on January 28, 2013. Ms. Mathews came to the attention ofthe Department when she sought prenatal care late in her pregnancy and tested positive for opiates and cocaine. At that time, Ms. Mathews acknowledged she suffered from
severe depression and admitted to using alcohol when depressed. When T.S. was born, he tested positive for cocaine and required additional medical care and observation after delivery. Ms. Mathews was living in a shelter at the time, but was asked to move out shortly after the birth. After a contested hearing inApril 2013, thejuvenile court found both children to 

### be dependent as to Ms. Mathews. Ms. Mathews did not appear at the dependency fact finding hearing. Indetermining dependency, the court found that Ms. Mathews has a history ofsubstance abuse and depression. The dependency order required Ms. Mathews to participate in individual mental health counseling, to complete a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow treatment recommendations, and to participate in random urinalysis three times per week. When the hospital discharged T.S., the Department placed him and four-year-old T.M. inthe care of a paternal aunt. Dependency review hearings and permanency planning hearings took place in July 2013, December2013, May 2014, and October 2014. Ms. Mathews did not appear at any ofthe hearings. After each hearing, the court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to provide services, but theNo. 72928-4-1/3


### mother had not engaged in any court-ordered services. The court also found that Ms. Mathews had not regularly visited the children. In July 2014, the Departmentfiled a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents. On November 26, 2014, both parents attended a hearing on the petition and signed documents ofconsent to relinquish parental rights and open adoption agreements. A few days later, Ms. Mathews contacted her attorney and revoked her 

### consent. The Department's petitionproceeded to trial on December5, 2014.1 Ms. Mathews was represented by counsel, but did not personally attend the trial. At trial, the court considered the testimony ofthe court appointed special advocate (CASA) and the social worker assigned to the case, as well as numerous exhibits.2 The CASA testified that she visited the children every month beginning in 

### April 2013. The CASA reported that T.S. had never lived with his motherand that T.M. only lived with her intermittently before she was removed inearly 2013. The CASA testified that she had had no opportunity to observe the children with Ms. Mathews. The CASA explained that she had no way ofcontacting Ms. Mathews because Ms. Mathews did not have an address or a working telephone number, so the

1Ms. Mathews told her attorney that the father also wished to revoke his previous consent to relinquish his parental rights. The State therefore presented evidence in support ofthe termination ofthe rights of both parents, and the court's orderterminated the 

### rights of both parents. Only Ms. Mathews is a party to this appeal and therefore, only the termination of her parental rights is at issue. 2The documentary evidence included the order ofdependency, review hearing orders, and court documents establishing Ms. Mathews' numerous prior convictions, predominately for charges oftheft and possession ofstolen property.No. 72928-4-1/4
CASA tried to contact her through the social worker, her attorney, and relatives with whom Ms. Mathews sporadically remained in contact. The CASA reported that she spoke once to Ms. Mathews by telephone when Ms. Mathews called her about four months before the termination trial. Although Ms. Matthews' words were slurred and she was difficult to understand, the CASA said Ms. Mathews was distressed about losing custody of her children. The CASA urged 

### Ms. Mathews to start participating in the services ordered by the court. The CASA provided the mother withthe social worker's name and telephone number and her attorney's telephone number. The CASA testified that Ms. Mathews had not obtained a drug and alcohol evaluation. The CASA recommended termination of the mother's parental rights because she had made no effort to engage incourt-ordered services to address her 

### parental deficiencies, she had seldom visited the children, had no home, and the children had been dependentfor nearly two years. In the CASA's opinion, termination of the parental relationship was in the best interests of the children. 

### The social worker assigned to the case for the duration of the dependency also testified that she was unable to contact Ms. Mathews after she left the shelter shortly 

### afterT.S.'s birth. The social worker had no physical address, e-mail address, or valid 

### telephone number forMs. Mathews and, like the CASA, tried to contact her through relatives. The social worker said that although she referred Ms. Mathews for services, 

### Ms. Mathews did not participate in any services, nor did she obtain a drug and alcohol
evaluation.No. 72928-4-1/5 In May 2014, the social worker learned that Ms. Mathews was in jail, and she visited hertherejust before her release. Atthat time, the social workerdelivered a letter to Ms. Mathews informing her of an upcoming dependency review hearing and outlining 

### the services ordered bythe dependency court. The letter asked Ms. Mathews to contactthe social worker upon her release and provided that "Atthat time, Ican refer 

### you for services."3 The letter included the social worker's name and contact information. The mother initiatedtelephone contact with the social worker twice: once before 

### the dependency was established in March 2013 and then not again until several months 

### after the jail visit in the summer of 2014. During the latter conversation, Ms. Mathews acknowledged her deficiencies and appeared to understand the services she was 

### required to engage in. She stated her intentto become involved in those services. The social worker made referrals for Ms. Mathews to obtain the required services, but 

### Ms. Mathews never attempted to obtain any services, nor did she attend any 

### dependency court hearings, orrequest any information about the children. The social worker said the children's caretaker was initiallyauthorized to 

### supervise visitation, but the visits rarely occurred. Atsome point, the Department began requiring professionally supervised visitation, butMs. Mathews never showed up for any supervised visits, nor did she request any official visitswith the children. The social worker testified that she filed the termination petition on behalfofthe 

### Department because she did not knowwhere Ms. Mathews was, she had no reason to believe that Ms. Mathews had made any effort to the address the issues that led to the 

### dependency, and that there was little likelihood the children could be returned to

3 Ex. 20.No. 72928-4-1/6
Ms. Mathews' care in the near future. The social worker identified Ms. Mathews' 

### parental deficiencies as significant mental health issues, long-standing drug and alcohol addiction, and a lack ofparenting skills. The social worker explained that T.S. has 

### "very, veryhigh medical needs"4 and expressed the opinion that Ms. Mathews was unable to meetthose needs because she had not demonstrated an ability to remain 

### sober, to recognize and meetthe needs of the children, or to make herself available to 

### parent them. The social worker estimated that itwould take at least six months, or more 

### likely a year, of consistently engaging in services to make sufficientprogress in order to attempt reunification. According to the socialworker, the children's caregiver, the paternal aunt, wanted to adopt the children, and continued dependency for six months 

### to a yearwould diminish the children's prospectsfor permanency and integration into a stable and permanent home. The socialworker also recommendedtermination as 

### being in the best interests ofthechildren "[bjecause itwould allowthem the opportunity to be adopted and have permanency and stability."5 Afterthe Department presented itscase, counsel forMs. Mathews asked the 

### court to deny the petition, oralternatively, to continue thetrial for six months toallow her to obtain services. The trial court issued an oral ruling and also entered written findings 

### of fact and conclusions of law terminating the parental rights of Ms. Mathews and the father as to both children. In ordering termination, the court found that the Department 

### offered services, but since the parents never attempted to engage in any services, there
was no reasonable basis to conclude thatthey would do anything differently ifthe court
4Report ofProceedings (RP) (Dec. 5, 2014) at 107. 5 Id. at 112.No. 72928-4-1/7

continued the trial. The court also found that all elements of RCW 13.34.180 had been established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. Finally, the courtfound that Ms. Mathews was unfit to parent and that termination was in the children's best interests. Ms. Mathews appeals. ANALYSIS Ms. Mathews contends thatthe Departmentfailed to prove that itexpressly and understandably offered all necessary services capable ofcorrecting her parental deficiencies, that there was little likelihood conditions could be remedied in the near future, and that she was currently unfit to parent. Ms. Mathews further contends that thejuvenile court's findings are insufficient and do not supportthe conclusions of law. Parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected by the United States 

### Constitution.6 To terminate parental rights, the State must satisfy a two-step test.7 First, itmust prove the following statutory elements by clear, cogent, and convincing
evidence: (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) Thatthe child has been removed or will, at the time ofthe hearing, have been removed from the custody ofthe parentfor 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, reasonably available, capable ofcorrecting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; 6Santoskv v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L Ed. 2d 599 (1982). 7 In the Matter ofWelfare ofA.B., 168 Wn.2d 908, 911, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010).No. 72928-4-1/8


### (e) That there is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent inthe near future.
. . . 

### (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable 

### and permanent home.[8] Ifthe trial court finds that the State has met its burden under RCW 13.34.180, it 

### may terminate parental rightsifit also finds by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the "best interests" of the child.9 

### Where the trial court has weighed the evidence, appellate review is limited to 

### determining whether the court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence 

### and whetherthosefindings supportthe court's conclusions oflaw.10 "Evidence is substantial ifit is sufficientto persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declared 

### premise."11 When deciding whether substantial evidence supports thefindings offact, 

### theappellate court mustconsider "'the degree ofproofrequired.'"12 Sincetheburden of prooffor termination proceedings is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence, "the 

### question on appeal is whetherthere issubstantial evidence to supportthefindings in 

### lightofthe highly probabletest."13 Unchallengedfindings areverities on appeal.14

8 RCW 13.34.180(1). 9RCW 13.34.190(b). 1° In re Dependency of P.P.. 58 Wn. App. 18, 25, 792 P.2d 159 (1990). 11 In re Welfare ofS.J.. 162 Wn. App. 873, 881, 256 P.3d 470 (2011). 

### 12 Inre Dependency ofA.M.M.. 182 Wn. App. 776, 785-86, 332 P.3d 500 (2014) (quoting PTJ., 58 Wn. App. at 25). 13 PJl, 58 Wn. App. at 25. 14 Inthe Matter of Interest of Mahanev, 146 Wn.2d 878, 895, 51 P.3d 776 (2002).No. 72928-4-1/9


### In its oral ruling, the court noted that "it'sclearthat services were offered and 

### recognized but neverfollowed through on" bytheparents.15 Thecourt noted the 

### parents' "persistentfailure" to do"anything atall" during thedependency.16 The court's written findings include the following: 2.8 There is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the children can be returned to the parents inthe nearfuture because 

### throughout the dependency the parents have demonstrated an unwillingness to participate inand/or successfully complete services offered to correct their parental deficiencies.



### 2.9 The Department has been ready and available to offerservices to each parent. However, throughout the dependency the whereabouts of both parents had been mostly unknown. The 

### parents have not maintainedtelephone contact with the 

### Department and the Departmentdid not havevalid addresses or phone numbers to contactthem.



### 2.14 Bothparents have a long history of mental health issues, homelessness, arrests, criminal convictions, and substance abuse. 

### The parents have not maintained contact with the Department nor 

### have they requested visitation with the children with the exception ofsome visits by the father early in the dependency. The parents 

### haveessentially abandoned these children.[17] Services Offered 

### Ms. Mathews argues that the socialworker's generictestimony thatshe made referrals so that Ms. Mathews could access services is insufficient to establish thatthe 

### Departmentexpressly and understandably offered orprovided necessary services.
15RP(Dec. 5, 2014) at 132-33. 16 Id, at 132. 17 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 171-72.No. 72928-4-1/10


### Ms. Mathews further points out that whilethe social worker testified that she made no referral for individualcounselling because Ms. Mathews could obtain that service without a referral, there is no evidence the social worker told Ms. Mathews this. And 

### Ms. Mathews suggests that because witnesses mentioned lack ofparenting skills and homelessness as aspects of her unfitness, the Department should have offered additional services which would have been helpful, such as parenting skills training and housing assistance. 

### But the suggestion that the Departmentfailed to meet its burden because "no 

### one explained to [Ms. Mathews] how to access [services]"18 and because the services offered were not sufficiently comprehensive simply ignores key facts established by the 

### evidence. There is no dispute that Ms. Mathews had notice of the dependency order and that she understood that the order required her to engage in services in orderto 

### regain custody. There is also ample evidence thatalthough Ms. Mathews was unreachable, the social worker was ready and able to assist her incomplying with the court order. The social workerexpressly testified that she did make service referrals to Ms. Mathews. When the social worker was able to reach Ms. Mathews in jail, she gave 

### her a letter requesting that she contact the social worker when she was released so the social worker could provide referrals for services. Ms. Mathewsdoes not challenge the 

### court'sfinding that the Department was ready and available to provide services to her. The testimonyestablished that Ms. Mathews knew how to contact the social worker. Both the CASA and the social worker explained to Ms. Mathews that the social

18 Reply Br. at 2.

10No. 72928-4-1/11
worker could help her access services. But Ms. Mathews never took any steps to


### access services, nor made any inquiryabout them. The trial court was not compelled to 

### accept her statements a year and a half after the children had been removed from her
care that she intended to participate. Ms. Mathews claims there is no evidence that she refused or rejected any service offered to her. Butthe evidence that she chose not to 

### contactthose willing to help her access and participate inservices supports the court's 

### finding that she "demonstrated an unwillingness toparticipate in anyservices."19 Where, as here, the Department offers services "but the parent refuses to participate, 

### RCW 13.34.180(1)(d) is satisfied."20 CurrentUnfitness and Likelihood ofRemedying Conditions 

### Ms. Mathews also challenges the court's findings that she is currentlyunfitto 

### parent and that there is little likelihood that conditions can be remediedin the near future.21 To meet its burden to prove current unfitness in a termination proceeding, the 

### Department must prove that the parent's deficiencies prevent the parentfrom providing the child with "basic nurture, health, or safety."22 And the focus of RCW 13.34.180(e) is whetherthe identified deficiencies have been corrected.23 "Aparent's failure to 

### substantially improve parental deficiencieswithin twelve monthsfollowing entry of the dispositional order shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that there is little likelihood

19 CP at 171. 20 Inre Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10, 26, 188 P.3d 510 (2008). 

### 21 See RCW 13.34.180(1)(e); Inre Dependency ofK.R., 128 Wn.2d 129, 142, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995). 22 Inre Welfare ofA.B.. 181 Wn. App. 45, 61, 323 P.3d 1062(2014). 23 In re Welfare ofM.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10, 25, 188 P.3d 510 (2008).

11No. 72928-4-1/12
that conditions willbe remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the


### nearfuture."24 "A parent's unwillingness to avail herselfof remedial services within a 

### reasonable period is highly relevant to a trial court's determination as to whetherthe 

### Department has satisfiedRCW 13.34.180(1)(e)."25 Evenifevidence shows the parent mayeventually be capable ofcorrecting theirdeficiencies, termination is still appropriate 

### where the correction will notlikely occurwithin the foreseeable future.26 Ms. Mathews contends thatthe finding ofparental unfitness is supported only by 

### facts established forpurposes ofdependency under a preponderance of the evidence 

### standard and byinadmissible hearsay. She also claims that mere absence or the 

### failure to engage in court-ordered services is, as a matter oflaw, insufficientto establish parentalunfitness. Ms. Mathews maintains thatwithout an adequately supported 

### finding ofparental deficiency, the court'sfinding on the likelihood ofremedying such deficiency necessarily fails. 

### Termination and dependency proceedings have "different objectives, statutory 

### requirements, andsafeguards."27 And while identification ofparental deficiencies is sufficientto support a dependency, a court may notpermanently terminate a parent's 

### rights without afinding ofcurrent parental unfitness.28 Here, thejuvenile courtdid not merely rely on the dependency court'spriordetermination ofparental deficiencies. As required, the courtfound currentparental unfitness beforeterminating Ms. Mathews'
24 RCW 13.34.180(1 )(e). 

### 25 Inre Welfare ofT.B.. 150 Wn. App. 599, 608, 209 P.3d 497 (2009). 26 Inre Welfare ofA.G.. 155 Wn. App. 578, 590, 229 P.3d 935 (2010). 27 In re Welfare of K.K., 119 Wn.2d 600, 609, 836 P.2d 200 (1992). 28 AB,, 181 Wn. App. at 60-61.

12No. 72928-4-1/13 

### rights. This finding is notconstitutionally infirm because it is based, in part, upon facts underlying the dependency. In a termination proceeding, the Department is not required to re-provethese facts.29 Ms. Mathews makes the sweeping assertion that the court's finding ofcurrent 

### unfitness is, for the most part, supported only by inadmissible hearsay. While the court 

### admitted some testimony merely for the purpose ofexplaining the basis for the social worker's and the CASA's opinions, Ms. Mathews identifies only one aspect of the 

### finding that isarguably unsupported by competentevidence in the record. 

### Specifically, Ms. Mathews points outthat thecourtdetermined she wascurrently unfitbased, in part, upon a history ofmental health issues. Atthetermination trial, the social worker also identified mental health issues as one of Ms. Mathews' deficiencies. 

### However, as Ms. Mathews observes, the social workerdid notspecifically describe any mental healthcondition, nor did she provide the basis for heropinion, orexplain how that condition affected her parenting. 

### Butevenignoring suchgeneral references to hermental health issues, the 

### finding ofparental unfitness wasalso basedupon substance abuseand abandonment. Substantial evidence before the court supports the finding that Ms. Mathews had a 

### substance abuse problem. Ms. Mathews testedpositive for drugs while pregnant, and T.S. testedpositivefor drugs atbirth. This was theprimary issue thatled to the 

### dependency and wasestablished bythedependency order andcorroborated by admitted testimony. These factsdid not have to be re-proved at thetermination trial.

29 K.R., 128Wn.2dat141.

13No. 72928-4-1/14 According to the testimony and documentary evidence, following the birth, Ms. Mathews did not obtain a substance abuse evaluation or drug treatment. The evidence also supports the court's finding that the parents "essentially 

### abandoned" the children.30 While parental unfitness, not abandonment, is the "ultimate inquiry required by due process for termination ofthe child-parent relationship, in all contexts," this does not mean that a parent's unavailability, infrequent contactwith the child, or lack of a relationship are inconsequential facts in determining current ability to 

### parent.31 To the extentthat Ms. Mathews suggests that mere absence or lack of progress in services alone does not prove parental unfitness, she overstates the case authority. In re Interest ofS.G. is inapplicable because inthat case, the court terminated parental rights, while at the same time, itexpressly found there were no 

### parental deficiencies.32 Similarly, in In the Matter of Welfare ofA.B.,the court made no express finding as to whetherthe father was unfit and, in view of the court's inconsistent 

### factual findings, a finding of unfitness could not be implied.33 Ms. Mathews claims that the only inference that may be drawn from the evidence is that she was unwilling to cooperate withthe Department. However, there is undisputed evidence that the parents seldom visited the children and that the younger child, almosttwo years old at the time of trial, believed his parental aunt was his mother. 

### The younger child had never been in Ms. Mathews' care, and Ms. Mathews had only

30 CP at 172 (Finding ofFact 2.14). 31 In re Adoption ofMcGee. 86 Wn. App. 471, 477, 937 P.2d 622 (1997). 32 140 Wn. App. 461, 468, 166 P.3d 802 (2007). 33 168 Wn.2d 908, 922, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010).

14No. 72928-4-1/15 intermittently cared for the older child prior to February 2013. Ms. Mathews did not attend any court proceedings, nor did she provide any input regarding the children's needs and placement during the dependency. Underthese circumstances, there is ample evidence that Ms. Mathews was unavailable and currently unfit to parentthe children. Sufficiency ofFindings Ms. Mathews claims that the court failed to make a finding as to one statutory factor and that there is no basis inthe record for some factual findings supporting the court's conclusions. 

### According to Ms. Mathews, the termination order must be reversed because the court did not make an explicit written finding pursuantto RCW 13.34.180(1 )(d)thatthe 

### Departmentexpressly and understandably offered or provided necessary and 

### reasonably available services capable of correcting her parental deficiencies. Butwhile the court did not enter a specific written finding addressing this statutory factor, it is 

### apparentfrom the written and oralfindings, including the oralfinding that "it's clear that 

### services were offered and recognized but neverfollowed through on,"34 that the court intended to find that the Department met its burden as to this factor.35 Finally, Ms. Mathews alleges that the court's findings contain few facts specific to her and, as in In re Dependency ofC.R.B.. the findings contain insufficientfacts to

34 RP (Dec. 5, 2014) at 132-33. 35 See A.B., 168 Wn.2d at 921 (omitted finding may be implied where it is clearfrom 

### the remaining findings and circumstances that the missing finding was "actually intended" by the court).

15No. 72928-4-1/16 

### support the court's legal conclusions.36 But C.R.B. is not analogous. There, the only evidence was the caseworker's testimony, which consisted of legal conclusions parroting the language of the statute. The court's factual findings were merely legal 

### conclusions, unsupported by any facts.37 Here, the court properly entered adequate factual findings and, as noted above, substantial evidence inthe record supports those findings. Those findings, in turn, support the court's legal conclusions. We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# £*/. <?.

36 62 Wn. App. 608, 804 P.2d 1197(1991). 37 Id. at 618-19.

16 O

-- -