IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the Matter ofthe Welfare of N.M.P.K.-A., D.O.B.: 3/16/08; T.K.A., D.O.B.: 7/21/10; T.R.K.-A., D.O.B.: 8/11/11,

Minor children. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

DEAN ALEXIS, Appellant. No. 72005-8-I (consolidated with case Nos. 72006-6-I and 72007-4-I) DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION

C3

CO

rv, FILED: July 13, 2015 

### Trickey, J. — Dean Alexis appeals the trial court's termination of his 

### parental rights to his three children. He challenges several of the trial court's findings offact. Butsubstantial evidence inthe record supports each ofthe court's findings. We affirm.
FACTS Dean Alexis is the father of N.M.P.K.-A. (born 3/16/2008), T.K.A. (born 

### 7/21/2010), and T.R.K.-A. (born 8/11/2011). The children's mother is not a party to this proceeding.1 

### The Department of Social and Health Services (Department) firstbecame

The mother's parental rights were terminated on February 6, 2014. ' CVNo. 72005-8-1 / 2 involved in April 2012, after it had received referrals with allegations of negligent

treatment toward the children. Law enforcement officers had conducted a welfare check on the residence after receiving a 911 hang up call. The officers noted

concerns that the mother was under the influence of methamphetamine. The house was reported to be dirty and cluttered with clothing and toys. This was not the firsttime police officers had responded to the home. On many otheroccasions, officers had responded to the home finding the mother intoxicated. They had also discovered many people drinking alcohol there and engaging indisorderly conduct. The Department filed a dependency petition on June 5, 2012. Alexis subsequently stipulated and agreed to the establishment ofdependency. 

### Between September 2012 and March 2013, Alexis lived in Canada to 

### pursue a job opportunity. Upon learning that the children were being placed in foster care, Alexis moved back to Washington, but was arrested and incarcerated for 11 days. Alexis returned to Canada in October 2013. 

### The Department filed a petition to terminate Alexis's parental rights on October 2, 2013. Alexis returned to Washington sometime inApril 2014. After a 

### termination hearing held in May 2014, the trial court terminated Alexis's parental rights. Alexis appeals.
ANALYSIS 

### Parents have a fundamental liberty interest inthe care and welfare of their children. In re Dependency of Schermer. 161 Wn.2d 927, 941-42, 169 P.3d 452 

### (2007). To terminate parental rights, the Department must satisfy a two-prongedNo. 72005-8-1 / 3
test. In re Dependency of K.N.J.. 171 Wn.2d 568, 576, 257 P.3d 522 (2011). The Department must first prove the statutory elements set forth in RCW 

### 13.34.180(1)(a) through (f)2 by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. K.N.J..
171 Wn.2d at 576-77. Evidence is clear, cogent, and convincing if itestablished the ultimate fact in issue as "'highly probable.'" In re Dependency of K.R.. 128 Wn.2d 129, 141, 904 P.2d 1132 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Seqo, 82 Wn.2d 736, 739, 513 P.2d 831 (1973)). Ifthe trial court finds that the Department

2RCW 13.34.180(1) states, in pertinent part: A petition seeking termination of a parent and child relationship may be filed in juvenile court by any party, includingthe supervising agency, to the dependency proceedings concerning that child. Such petition shall conform to the requirements of RCW 13.34.040, shall be served upon the parties as provided in RCW 13.34.070(8), and shall allege all of the following unless subsection (3) or (4) of this section applies: (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 removed from the custody of the parent for a period of at least six months pursuantto a finding ofdependency; (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 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. If the parent is incarcerated, the court shall consider whether a parent maintains a meaningful role in his or her child's life based on factors identified in RCW 13.34.145(5)(b); whether the department or supervising agency made reasonable efforts as defined inthis chapter; and whether particular barriers existed as described in RCW 13.34.145(5)(b) including, but not limited to, delays or barriers experienced in keeping the agency apprised of his or her location and inaccessing visitation or other meaningful contact with the child.No. 72005-8-1 / 4 

### has met its burden under RCW 13.34.180, it may terminate parental rights ifitalso 

### finds by a preponderance of the evidence that termination is in the "best interest" ofthe child. K.N.J., 171 Wn.2d at 577. 

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

### determining whether the court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whetherthose findings supportthe court's conclusions of law. In re 

### Dependency of P.P.. 58 Wn. App. 18, 25, 792 P.2d 159 (1990). "'Substantial evidence' is evidence in sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational 

### person of the truth of the declared premise." In re Welfare ofT.B.. 150Wn. App. 599, 607, 209 P.3d 497 (2009) (quotingWorld Wide Video. Inc. v. Citv ofTukwila, 117 Wn.2d 382, 387, 816 P.2d 18 (1991)). The determination of whether the 

### findings offactaresupported by substantial evidence "mustbe madein lightofthe degree ofproof required." PJ1, 58 Wn. App. at 25. In determining whether substantial evidence supports the trial court's findings, this court does notweigh 

### the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. In re Dependency ofE.L.F., 117Wn. App. 241, 245, 70 P.3d 163 (2003). Application of RCW 13.34.180(1 )(f) 

### Alexis contends that the Departmentfailed toprove, and thetrial courtfailed to consider, the recent statutory amendments set forth in RCW 13.34.180(1)(f) pertaining to incarcerated parents. He asserts that the factors apply to parents 

### who werein custody at some pointduring the dependency, regardless ofwhether 

### they were incarcerated at thetime ofthetermination hearing. In a recentdecision of this court, In re Dependency ofD.L.B.. No. 72421-5-1 (Wash. Ct. App. July ,No. 72005-8-1 / 5 2015), we concluded that the amended factors only apply if the parent is incarcerated atthe time ofthe termination hearing. Accordingly, we rejectAlexis's contention.3 Current Unfitness and Little Likelihood that Conditions Would be Remedied Alexis next challenges the trial court's determinations that he was currently unfit to parent his children and that there was little likelihood that conditions would be remedied so that his children could be returned to him in the near future. We disagree. The Departmentmustprove thatthe parentis currently unfitand "[tjhatthere is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned 

### to the parent in the near future." RCW 13.34.180(1)(e); In re Welfare ofA.B.. 168 Wn.2d 908, 921, 232 P.3d 1104 (2010). 

### "To meet its burden to prove current unfitness in a termination proceeding, 

### [the Department] is required to prove that the parent's parenting deficiencies 

### preventthe parentfrom providing the child with 'basic nurture, health, or safety' by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence." In reWelfare ofA.B., 181 Wn. App. 45, 61, 323 P.3d 1062 (2014). 

### Alexis'sidentified parental deficiencies includedsubstance abuse, domestic

3 Notwithstanding Alexis's contention concerning application of the additional factors in RCW 13.34.180(1)(f), Alexis assigns error to the trial court's finding as to the first part of the statute, which states "[t]hat continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home." 

### He also assigns error to the trial court's finding that termination of the parent-child relationship isin the best interests ofthe children. ButAlexis fails to supportthese claims 

### of error with argument in his brief. The assignments of error are therefore waived. Cowiche Canvon Conservancy v. Boslev. 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992). Nevertheless, a review of the record establishes that the challenged findings are supported by the record.No. 72005-8-1 / 6 

### violence issues, anger issues, and lack of parenting skills. In the order of dependency, the trial court ordered Alexis to participate in a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommendations; complete random urinalysis testing; complete a domestic violence batterer's assessment and follow any recommendations; complete a psychological evaluation and follow any recommendations; and participate in a parenting program. Dr. Jason Prinster conducted a psychological and parental competency evaluation of Alexis in October 2012. He found that Alexis presented many risk 

### factors affecting his ability to parent. These included psychiatric diagnoses, emotional difficulties, history ofsubstance abuse, and relationship, occupational, 

### and housing instability. At the time of the 2012 evaluation, Dr. Prinster recommended thatAlexis participatein a medication evaluation and mental health 

### counseling to addresshis symptoms associated with his psychiatric andemotional difficulties, as well as an anger management program. Dr. Prinster also 

### recommended a parent-focused intervention tohelp Alexis improve his parenting skills. Dr. Prinster concluded that ifAlexis did not participate in the recommended services and amelioratethe riskfactors identified inOctober2012, these significant risk factors would still be present in April2014. 

### By the time ofthetermination hearing, Alexis failed to complete substance abuse treatment, missed a significant number ofrandom urinalysis testing, failed 

### to complete parenting education, and did not complete any service recommendations made byDr. Prinster. Thetrial courtcorrectlyfound that despite 

### theoffering ofthese services, Alexis failed toimprove his parentalfunctioning. HisNo. 72005-8-1 / 7 failure to correct his deficiencies prevented him from being able to adequately 

### parent his children. The trial court did not err infinding that Alexiswas currently unfit to parent his children. 

### The trial court also properly found that there was little likelihood that conditions would be remedied in the near future. The focus of RCW 

### 13.34.180(1 )(e) is whether the identified deficiencies have been corrected. In re Welfare ofM.R.H.. 145 Wn. App. 10, 27, 188 P.3d 510 (2008). "Even where there 

### is evidence that the parent may eventually be capable of correcting parental deficiencies, termination isstill appropriate where deficiencieswill not be corrected withinthe foreseeable future." In re Welfare ofA.G., 155 Wn. App. 578, 590, 229 

### P.3d 935(2010). Although thelawprovides nonumerical standard to measure the foreseeable future, this determination is a factualinquiryevaluatedfrom "the child's 

### point ofview," which varies with the child's age. In re Dependency ofA.C., 123 Wn. App. 244, 249, 98P.3d 89(2004) (citing In reWelfare ofHall. 99Wn.2d 842, 851, 664 P.2d 1245 (1983)); see, e.g., In re Dependency ofT.R., 108Wn. App. 149,165-66, 29 P.3d 1275 (one year is notforeseeable or nearfuture for six-year

### old child); Hall, 99Wn.2d at 850-51 (eight months is not within theforeseeable future offour-year-old child); In reDependency ofA.W.. 53Wn. App. 22, 32, 765 

### P.2d 307 (1988) (one year isnot in the nearfuture ofthree-year-old child); P.P.. 58Wn. App. at 27 (six months is notin the nearfuture of15-month-old child). 

### TheDepartmentsocialworkerinvolved inthe case testified that hebelieved that Alexis would not be able to correct his parental deficiencies inthe nearfuture. He also concluded it would be detrimental to the children to give Alexis more timeNo. 72005-8-1 / 8
to correct his parental deficiencies. The guardian ad litem confirmed this belief and testified that Alexis's failure to complete necessary services impacted his ability to safely parent his children. Substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that there was little likelihood that Alexis would correct his parental
deficiencies in the near future. Affirmed. 

# yj (Mq^ j

WE CONCUR: 

# ferJttet,

8