i !U: u'J

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of LAD., d.o.b. 02/18/13, Minor Child. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

ASHLEY DUKELLIS, Appellant. No. 74457-7-I

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: November 14, 2016

Verellen, C.J.

— Ashley Dukellis appeals an orderterminating her parental rights to her daughter, L.D. She contends the court entered irreconcilable findings 

### regarding L.D.'s best interest and that the resulting ambiguity undermines the termination order and violates her right to due process. Because the challenged findings are reconcilable and the unchallenged findings support the remaining prerequisites for termination, we affirm.No. 74457-7-1/2

FACTS 

### Ashley is the biological mother ofthree children, including a daughter, L.D., 

### bornin February2013.1 During her pregnancywith L.D., Ashleytested positivefor marijuana and methamphetamine. When L.D. was born, both L.D. and Ashley 

### tested positive for marijuana. A few days afterL.D.'s birth, Ashley admitted using methamphetamine fourtimes during her pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, the Department of Social and Health Services filed a 

### dependency petition. The courtentered an order ofdependency requiring Ashley to obtain a chemical dependency assessment, a psychological evaluation with a parenting component, mental health counseling and medication services, and 

### domestic violence treatment services. The court also required Ashley to submitto random urinalysis testing, attend sober support meetings, and engage inparenting
education. 

### InApril 2014, the Departmentfiled a petition to terminate Ashley's parental rights. Following a trial, the court granted the petition and entered the following pertinentfindings offact and conclusions of law: II. Findings
2.11 Since dependency was established, services ordered under RCW 13.34.130 have been offered or provided and all necessary services reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future have been offered or provided. These services included the following as to the mother: [rjandom urinalysis, drug and alcohol evaluation, domestic violence victim's assessment, psychological and mental health assessment, mental health counseling, parenting assessment and parenting education. 

### 1L.D.'s father relinquished his parental rights inJanuary 2015.No. 74457-7-1/3



### a. The delay inthe mother receiving mental health services after 

### the retirement ofone of her providers is not compelling to the court as a basis forasserting that allnecessary services have not been provided because the mother has not substantially engaged in her other services which would be necessary inorderfor her to capably parentthe child and adequately address her mental health. 

### b. There is no demonstration thatthe mother has engaged in substance abuse services, or demonstrated ongoing sobriety, where the significant remaining risk to the child is that substance abuse has incapacitated her in the past. 

### c. While not an issue of fault, due to her profound mental health 

### issues, the mother demonstrates an inability to work withother people, including hertreatment providers, her social workers, and even her own 

### attorneys; it is difficultto see how the mother could capably parentthe child without an ability to work with others such as teachers, daycare providers, doctor's therapists, and friends and family. Her mental health 

### circumstances also subject herto debilitating panic attacks during which she is not able to care for the child. 

### d. The mother did not, or was not able to, engage in services 

### necessary forherto assume care for the childdespite those necessary services being offered. 

### 2.12 Given the 32 months ofservices offered or provided, there is little likelihood that the conditions will be remedied so that the child could be returned to the parents in the nearfuture. The mother is currently unfit to care for the child.

a. There is no indication that the mother's mental health issues can or will be remedied in the near future such that the mother will be able to care for the child on full-time parental basis. b. There is no demonstration that the mother has remained clean and soberfor any substantial period oftime during the life ofthe dependency. 2.13 Continuation ofthe parent-child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospectfor early integration into a stable and permanent home. The consensus ofexpert opinion is that both the likelihood and the ease with which a child willbond into a new family setting are increased when the child is placed into a family setting at a younger age versus a more delayed placement. The continuation of the status quo is not in the child's best interests and a resolution is needed as to who willbe this child's permanent caretaker. The child'sNo. 74457-7-1/4 needs forpermanence and stability must, at this point in time, be accordedpriorityoverthe rights ofthe biologicalparents inorderto fosterthe early integration ofthe child into a stable andpermanent home as quickly as possible.
a. Termination willfacilitate the child's adoption into a stable and permanent home. b. While the court recognizes the limitations imposed by statute, and that the court cannot mandate continued contact between the motherand the child, the court does believe that continued visitation between the mother and the child is in the child's best interest. 2.14 Termination ofthe parent-childrelationship is in the best interests ofthe child to allowadoption planning to begin and to foster the creation ofa stable andpermanentplacementfor the child.

a. Termination willfacilitate the child's adoption into a stable and permanent home. 2.15 The motheris currently unfit toparent the child. The 

### motherwas notified ofher parental deficiencies. Because ofthese deficiencies, the motherwas unable to understand and was incapable 

### of providing for the child's emotional, physical, mental and developmental needs. Themotheris incapable ofsafelyparenting the child. 2.16 The child has 2 half siblings. The status ofthe child's 

### relationship with any sibling with whom the child has a relationship is: the child has limited contact. The nature and extent ofcontact between 

### the child and the siblings shall be: as determined by the caregivers or adoptive parent(s). 

### From the foregoing Findings ofFact, the court now makes and enters the following:
III. Conclusions of Law



### 3.2 The foregoing Findings ofFact have been established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. 3.3 The requirements of RCW 13.34.180(a) - (f) and RCW 

### 13.34.190(2) have been established by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.No. 74457-7-1/5

3.4 The parent-childrelationship existing between [L.D.] and
. .. her mother, Ashley Dukellis, shouldbe terminated pursuant to 

### RCW 13.34.190(1)(a) and (2).TM The court expressly incorporated its oral findings by reference. Those findings included the following: And Ido believe thatthere should be a specific finding to the effectthat Ms. Dukellis's relationship with her child is in the child's best interest and should continue in some form. That does not negate the Court's decision though that 

### terminationofparentalrights should occur and is inthe child's best interest. So there's a balancing there that will ultimately be left to the adoptive parents. And I'm making the finding because it's true in my view and because Ithink the adoptive parents should know it, but it will 

### not[ajffectthe outcome in thiscaseP] Ashley appeals. DECISION 

### Parental rights are a fundamental liberty interest protected bythe United States Constitution.4 To terminate parental rights, the State must satisfy a two-step 

### test. First, itmust prove the following statutory elements by clear, cogent, and 

### convincing5 evidence (a) Thatthe child has been found to be a dependent child; (b) That the court has entered a dispositional order pursuantto RCW 13.34.130;



### 2Clerk's Papers (CP) at 288-90 (emphasis added). 

### 3Report ofProceedings (RP) (Dec. 4, 2015) at 373-74 (emphasis added). 4 Santoskv v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L Ed.2d 599 (1982).

### 5"'Clear, cogent and convincing' means highly probable." In re Welfare of M.R.H., 145 Wn. App. 10, 24, 188 P.3d 510 (2008).No. 74457-7-1/6 (c) That the child has been removed or will, at the time ofthe hearing, have been removed 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, reasonably 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 willbe remedied so that the child can be returned to the parent in the nearfuture [and]
(f) That continuation ofthe parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable 

### and permanent home.[6] Ifthe trial court finds that the State has met its burden under RCW 13.34.180, 

### itmay terminate parental rights if italso finds by a preponderance ofthe evidence 

### thattermination is inthe "best interests" ofthe child.7 On review, unchallenged 

### findings of fact are considered verities.8 Challenged findings will be upheld "[i]fthere is substantial evidence which the lower court could reasonably have found to be 

### clear, cogentand convincing."9 Ashley does not challenge the court's findings and conclusions under RCW 13.34.180(1 )(a)-(f). Her sole contention on appeal is thatthe court's findings 

### regarding L.D.'s best interests are ambiguous, that such findings do not satisfy

6RCW 13.34.180(1). 7RCW 13.34.190(1 )(a)(iv),(b). 8 In re Interest ofJ.F.. 109 Wn. App. 718, 722, 37 P.3d 1227 (2001). 9 In re Aschauer. 93 Wn.2d 689, 695, 611 P.2d 1245(1980).No. 74457-7-1/7 

### RCW 13.34.190(2), and that terminationtherefore denied her due process. She claims "[i]t is axiomatic that itcannot be in L.D.'s best interest to both terminate and 

### maintain her parent-child relationship with Dukellis."10 She concludes that the 

### findings "are irreconcilable" and leave "the record ambiguous as to whetherthe trial 

### court made the findings necessary for a valid termination order."11 We disagree. There is no ambiguity or inconsistency in the court's findings. The court found 

### Ashley"unfittocareforthe child,"12 that L.D.'s best interests "are served by termination ofparentalrights,"13 and that "[t]heparent-childrelationship existing between [L.D.] and
... her mother. . . should be terminated."14 These findings that it is notin L.D.'sbest interest to have a parent-childrelationship with Ashley in no way conflictwith the court's findings that itwould be in L.D.'sbest interest for Ashley to have a nonparentalrelationship with L.D. Nor is there any ambiguity as to whether the courtfound that termination ofthe parent-childrelationship was in L.D.'s best 

### interest. The court's written and oral findings regarding L.D.'s best interests clearly and unequivocally distinguish between a parental or nonparental relationship with Ashley. The court even acknowledged that itlacked authority to require ongoing contact between Ashley and L.D., but found that such contactthrough an open adoption would be in L.D.'s best interest. There is no ambiguity inthe court's findings under RCW 13.34.190(2) and therefore, no denial ofdue process.


### 10Appellant's Br. at 14. 11 Appellant's Br. at 9. 

### 12 CP at 289 (Finding ofFact 2.12) (emphasis added). 13 RP (Nov. 5, 2015) at 347 (emphasis added). 

### 14 CP at 290 (Conclusion of Law 3.4) (emphasis added).No. 74457-7-1/8
Affirmed.

WE CONCUR: 

# *f£~;