IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of C.G.R., DOB: 07/12/11 Minor Child.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent

v. ROBERT RADDER; AUNDREA KOPP, Appellants. No. 73399-1-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: June 27, 2016 rv> , „ • • <=3 *>>

- en.

—w :--{r- er> t_
'• % C ' -rifl.
. C3 -, -. ro —j z~~~-: *"'" "":""' 25-': CO 7~i '

_;,-, :..'"~ --' «jD ':Hhz CO ! •"•; 1"TM



### Verellen, C.J. — Aundrea Kopp and Robert Radder appeal from an order 

### terminating their parental rights to their son, C.G.R. 

### Koppcontends the Departmentof Social and Health Services (Department) 

### failed to giveadequate notice that her mental health could constitute a parental deficiency supporting termination. But insupplemental findings, the trial court has clarified that Kopp's substance abuse issues alone supporttermination. Sufficient 

### evidence supports the supplemental findings and the trial court's determination that the Department adequately offered mental health services.No. 73399-1-1/2 Both parents contend they were denied due process because the court appointed special advocate (CASA) failed to conduct an adequate investigation. But the CASA gathered detailed information about the parents and C.G.R. The alleged deficiencies go to the weight ofthe CASA's testimony, not to its admissibility. The parents were not denied due process. As to the remaining arguments, visitation is not a service, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination about prospective adoption plans, and the record adequately supports the remaining elements for termination. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's termination order as to both parents and lift the existing stay. FACTS Aundrea Kopp and Robert Radder are the parents ofC.G.R., a boy born in July 

### 2011. In May 2012, Radder's sister contacted Child Protective Services. She reported that Radder saw Kopp using drugs intheir home with a drug dealer. Kopp left withthe 

### drug dealer and took C.G.R. with her. Radder admitted to the Departmentthat he and Kopp had recently used methamphetamines. Radderfailed three urinalyses between 

### May 2012 and July 2012. Kopp pleaded guilty to attempted prescription forgery for oxycodone inAugust 2012. C.G.R. was removed from his parents' custody later that
month.On October 24, 2012, the trial court entered agreed dependency orders for both 

### parents. The court ordered both parents to provide clean, not missed, and undiluted urinalyses twice per week for 90 days and to complete a substance abuse assessmentNo. 73399-1-1/3 

### and tofollow any recommended treatment. The court also ordered Radder to complete

a domestic violence assessment and to follow any recommended treatment. 

### Although she participated in several substance abuse programs, Kopp was not successful. She repeatedly relapsed and never satisfied the 90-day urinalysis 

### requirement. Kopp received multiple referrals forsubstance abuse assessment, urinalysis testing, and recommended treatment. 

### In April 2013, InterceptAssociates, an outpatient substance abuse program, 

### evaluated Kopp. Kopp was self-medicating with daily marijuana use in part tocontrol 

### heranxiety and depression. Kopp began a recommended nine-month outpatient substance abuse treatment program at Intercept. After "progressingwell," she 

### struggled with consistentattendance.1 Kopp relapsed. In June2013, Intercept recommended Koppfor inpatienttreatment. Amonth later, she was discharged from the Intercept program. 

### When the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery evaluated Kopp in early 

### April 2013, Kopp indicated thattreatmentfor her"psychological problems" was 

### extremely important, that shewas "in need" ofmental health services, and that shehad 

## experienced "serious anxiety/tension" inthe past30days.2 SocialworkerAmanda Potter recommended a Foster Care Assessment Program (FCAP) reunification 

### assessment. Both parents agreed. In July 2013,socialworker PaulaSolomon 

### completedthe FCAP reunification assessmentreport. Solomon metwith Kopp several times andnoted thatKopp "demonstrated positive parenting skills and a strong bond"

1 Ex. 79. 2 Ex. 74 at 6.No. 73399-1-1/4 

### with C.G.R.3 Solomon recommended that Kopp complete substance abuse treatment, engage inmental health treatment using cognitive behavioral therapy, and receive a psychiatric assessmentfor mental health medications. Kopp had "participated inmental health at Valley Cities inthe past, and she had indicated she would be interested in 

### goingthere again."4 Solomon read the FCAP report recommendations to Kopp "about being able to get cognitive behavioral therapy at Valley Cities where she had been before."5 Atthe time ofthe termination trial, Kopp was inthe process ofapplying for 

### services with Valley Cities, but had not completed the process. Kopp did not enroll for mental health treatment at Valley Cities orelsewhere. She did not seek a psychiatric
evaluation. 

### Beginning in September2013, Kopp began 30 days of inpatienttreatment at Sundown MRanch. Social worker Potter advised Kopp to follow Sundown's treatment 

### recommendations and recommended that Kopp engage inmental health treatment 

### usingcognitive behavioral therapy and obtain a psychiatric evaluation. Sundown referred Kopp to Evergreen Manorforlong term inpatient treatment. In October2013, Kopp began inpatient treatment at Evergreen Manor, butleft a week later. Evergreen recommended that Koppcomplete long term residential treatment and mental health services. Kopp declined to participate further intreatment at Evergreen. In November 2013, Koppreentered outpatienttreatment at Intercept. Intercept 

### recommended that Kopp complete an eight-month outpatienttreatment program. For 

### the next month, Kopp had "perfectattendance" with group treatment sessions and

3 Ex. 67 at 10. 

### 4Report ofProceedings (RP) (Mar. 12, 2015) at 736. 5 Id. at 759.No. 73399-1-1/5 

### established a support system, butfailed a urinalysis.6 In December 2013, Kopp failed two urinalyses. InJanuary 2014, Kopp missed two urinalyses and failed two more. In March 2014, Kopp was placed in phase two of Intercept's treatment program in an 

### attemptto provide her tools to establish sober support inthe community. In April 2014, Intercept discharged Kopp from outpatienttreatment because she relapsed, stopped responding to letters, and missed several urinalyses. 

### In itsApril 2014 Individual Service and Safety Plan report, the Department "highly recommended" that Kopp engage inmental health treatment as an "important part of 

### [her] recovery process."7 Koppmissed many urinalyses insubsequent months. From 

### April to June 2014, Kopp "missed 16 out ofthe 22 scheduledurinalysis drug screens."8 In May 2014, Kopp admitted using controlledsubstances. She had not completed substance abuse treatment or satisfied the 90-day urinalysis requirement. Because C.G.R. had been "in out-of-home care for 15 ofthe last 22 months," the court 

### recommended that the Departmentfile a terminationpetition.9 Kopp again reentered treatment at Intercept. Potter sent Kopp a service letter 

### recommending that she engage in mental health treatment using cognitive behavioral therapy and that she obtain a psychiatric evaluation. A counselor at Interceptprovided 

### Kopp "with cognitive behavioral techniques tomanage hermental health.10

6 Exs. 86-87. 7 Ex. 118 at 9, 22. 8 Ex. 96. 9 Ex. 27 at 3. 

### 10 Clerk's Papers (CP) at 468 (Finding of Fact (FF) 2.8.36).No. 73399-1-1/6 

### InJune 2014, Intercept again discharged Kopp from treatment. She had not shown significant behavioral changes necessary to be successful inher recovery. The Departmentfiled a termination petition. Potter sent Kopp service letters informing her to enroll in substance abuse treatment and urinalysis testing. Potter again referred herto mental health treatment. Kopp did not provide urinalyses from June to October 2014 or in February 2015. Social worker Micah Kurtz was assigned to the case in July 2014. Kurtz told 

### Kopp to continue doing her urinalyses and substance abuse treatment. That same month, Kopp pleaded guilty to theft. 

### Social worker Sihnae Moore was assigned to the case in September2014. 

### Moore sent Koppseveral service letters referring her to a substance abuse assessment 

### and urinalysis testing. Moore stated in the letters that the FCAP program recommended mental health treatment using cognitive behavioral therapy and a psychiatric evaluation. As of November 2014, Kopp had notcompleted any urinalyses since June 2014. 

### The Department had problems scheduling visitation forKopp. FromSeptember 2013 to November2013, Kopp had only two visits with C.G.R. The Departmenttried to 

### set upvisitations while Kopp was in inpatient treatment, butvisitation was allowed only
on weekends, and C.G.R. became ill once. When Kopp abruptly leftEvergreen Manor, 

### visitation was delayed because the visitation plan had to be reworked. Afterthe 

### Departmentfound a newvisitation provider, Kopp denied the visitation offerdue to 

### scheduling conflicts. The Department agreed thatKopp was "owed" visitation and proposedincreasing hervisitation hours.11

11 Ex. 14 at 3.No. 73399-1-1/7 InDecember 2013, the courtfound that Kopp was entitled to 117 hours ofmake 

### up visits. Kopp had only two visits with C.G.R. between July 2013 and December 2013,


### even though she was available for visits. Kopp's visitation with C.G.R. up to that point had been "positive," she had provided "stable, consistent, and appropriate care" for C.G.R.12 InJanuary 2014, the court ordered thatthe Department provide Kopp 159 hours ofmake-up visits. InFebruary 2014, the court entered an agreed orderto permit unsupervised visitation afterfour weeks ofmonitored visitation. Radder worked as a commercial fisherman inAlaska for years. His work 

### schedule varied withthe fishing season. He usually signed "a two-month contract" and, 

### whenworking, he was usually out at seafor "three totwelve days."13 Between October 2012 and the termination trial in March 2015, Radder made eighttrips to Alaska. 

### Radder received multiple referrals for substance abuse and domestic violence assessments and recommended treatment. He completed the assessments, but not
the treatment. 

### In2012, social worker Monica Barry referred Radderto Social Treatment 

### Opportunities in Puyallup for urinalysis testing and a substance abuse assessment. 

### Barry also gave Radder "a list of service providers where he could get his domestic violence assessment done."14 She referred him to services in Puyallup because he 

### wanted to engage inservices near his home once he returned from Alaska. Radder
never indicated that he did not understand the services that he had to complete.

12 Ex. 14at1. 13RP(Mar. 19, 2015) at 1259. 14RP(Mar. 9, 2015) at 226.No. 73399-1-1/8 Radder's domestic violence assessment recommended participation in a one

### year outpatienttreatment program. The assessment also revealed that Radder recently failed a urinalysis. Radder reported using methamphetamines and driving under the influence. From late December 2012 to early January 2013, he failed two urinalyses. InMarch 2013, social worker Potterwas assigned to the case. Potter sent 

### Radder a letter informing him of her contact information. Potter referred Radderto a substance abuse assessment and informed him ofother urinalysis sites more convenientfor his work schedule. Potter contacted Radderto determine ifhe needed assistance with his referrals. Radder's substance abuse assessment recommended 

### outpatienttreatment. As of June 2013, Radder hadgiven some urinalyses and had 

### completed a substance abuse anddomesticviolence assessment, butwas notfollowing
treatment recommendations. 

### In July2013, socialworker Solomon recommended that Radderengage in domestic violence and substance abuse treatment. Solomon did not meetwith Radder because he was in Alaska. 

### In August2013, Pottersent Radder a serviceletterreferring him to a substance abuse assessment, urinalysis testing, and domestic violence treatment and to ensure he had all the information necessary to complete the court-ordered services. Radder 

### "expressedthat heknewwhatheneeded to do andwhereto access services andhow
to do it."15 Radder had another substance abuse assessment, but never returned for 

### recommended treatment. Radderfailed a urinalysis and missed several others in

15 Id. at 349.No. 73399-1-1/9 October 2013. In late November 2013, social worker Potter sent Radder a service letter referring him to substance abuse and domestic violence treatment and urinalysis testing. Inthe letter, Potter included phone numbers for the services he needed to
access and her contact information. Radder missed scheduled urinalyses. Radder did not complete the recommendations inthe FCAP assessment report. 

### Radder was "not really involved" with C.G.R.16 In April 2014, the Department issued its Individual Service and Safety Plan report stating that Radder needed to follow through with treatment recommendations. The report noted that Radder's visits had been sporadic. Laterthat month, Potter sent Radder a service letter referring him to reengage in substance abuse and domestic violence treatment. In June 2014, the Departmentfiled a termination petition. Social worker Micah Kurtz was assigned to the case in July 2014. Kurtz did not have any contactwith Radder. Inthe fall of2014, new social worker Sihnae Moore sent Radder a service letter referring him to substance abuse and domestic violence treatment and urinalysis testing. Moore made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Radder "to find out where his location was so that [she] could make a referral to 

### [urinalyses] thatwere in his area."17 Moore met Radderfor the first time in October 2014 and gave him a service letter. Moore called Radder several times, to no avail. Radder never tried to contact Moore. Nor did Radder ask Moore for a referral to services in Alaska. Radder never

16 Ex. 68. 

### 17RP(Mar. 10, 2015) at 393.No. 73399-1-1/10 

### began domestic violence treatment. He did not satisfy the 90-day urinalysis requirement. 

### Nine months after having filed a termination petition, trial begin on March 9, 

### 2015, and lasted eight days. InApril 2015, the trial court entered an orderterminating 

### Kopp's and Radder's parental rights. The court found that the Department proved the elements of RCW 13.34.180(1), concluded that both parents were currently unfit to 

### parent C.G.R., and entered a termination order as to both parents. Kopp and Radder appeal the termination order. ANALYSIS Standard ofReview 

### We review an orderterminating parental rights to determine ifsubstantial 

### evidence supports the court's findings and ifthose findings in turn support its conclusions.18 "'Substantial evidence is evidence sufficientto persuade a fair-minded 

### rational person ofthetruth ofthe declaredpremise.'"19 "Unchallenged findings are 

### verities on appeal."20 Thetrieroffact alone makes credibility determinations.21 The Department must prove six statutoryelements—onlythree ofwhich are at issue here—by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: 

### (1) the services ordered have been expressly and understandably offered or provided and allnecessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting the parental deficiencies within the
18 Inre Welfare ofK.M.M., 187 Wn. App. 545, 564, 349 P.3d 929 (2015), review granted, 184 Wn.2d 1026 (2016). 

### 19IdL (quoting In reWelfare ofC.B., 134Wn. App. 942, 953, 143 P.3d 846 (2006)). 20 In re Dependency of M.S.R.. 174 Wn.2d 1, 9, 271 P.3d 234 (2012). 

### 21 In re Dependency ofA.M.M.. 182 Wn. App. 776, 786, 332 P.3d 500 (2014).

10No. 73399-1-1/11 foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided; 

### (2) there is little likelihoodthat conditions will be remedied so thatthe child can be returned to the parent inthe nearfuture; and 

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

### permanent home.[22] 

### "Clear, cogent, and convincingevidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is 'highly probable.'"23 The Department "must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

### thattermination of parental rights isin the child's best interests."24 Lack of Notice ThatKopp's Mental Illness Maybe Grounds forTermination 

### Kopp argues she was not givenadequate notice that her mental health was an 

### alleged parental deficiencythatmay supporttermination. TheDepartmentrecognized thatKopp had "along history ofmental illness."25 As early as April 2013,the 

### Departmentknewthat Kopp could benefitfrom mental healthtreatment.26 The 

## DepartmentsentKopp many referral lettersfor mental healthtreatment.27 Solomon read the FCAP recommendations to Kopp "about being able to get cognitive behavioral 

### therapy atValley Cities where she had beenbefore."28 TheDepartmentand theFCAP report recommended mental health treatmentfor Kopp. TheFCAP report noted that 22 RCW 13.34.180(1)(d)-(f); In re Dependency ofK.D.S., 176Wn.2d 644, 652 n.3, 294 P.3d 695 (2013). 

### 23 K.M.M., 187Wn. App. at 564-65 (quoting In re Dependency ofK.C.S., 137 Wn.2d 918, 925, 976 P.2d 113 (1999)). 24 Id at 565. 25 CP at 117. 26 Ex. 74. 

### 27 See Exs. 58, 64, 65, 103, 109; CP at 467-68 (unchallenged FF 2.8.31-35). 28RP(Mar. 12, 2015) at 759.

11No. 73399-1-1/12 

### Kopppresented "two major riskareas interms of her substance abuse and mental health."29 In closing at trial, Kopp's counsel argued that "[n]obodyeverexplained to Ms. Kopp what [cognitive-behavioral therapy] was, why itwas important, [and] that itwas 

### supposed to change her behavior."30 The courtfound in its termination orderthat Kopp "did not engage in mental 

### health treatment,"31 her "past and continuing mental health problems are serious deficiencies,"32 and her "parenting deficiencies" prevent herfrom "providing [C.G.R.] 

### with basic nurture, health, or safety."33 In its oral ruling, the court also stated that there is little likelihood Kopp's parental deficiencies, including her mental health issues, would be remedied.34 The court made extensive findings about Kopp's substance abuse 

### problems and herfailure to consistentlyengage in treatment.35 In supplemental findings, the trial courthas nowclarified that Kopp's substance abuse issues alone support its decision to terminate Kopp's parental relationship with C.G.R. In In re Dependency ofA.M.M., the court concluded the parent's due process 

### rightto adequate notice was violated because the trial court ordered termination based in part on her lack of knowledge about her children's developmental needs even though

29 CP at 314. 30RP(Mar. 19, 2015) at 1355. 31 CPat471 (FF 2.9.2). 

### 32 Id (FF 2.9.1). 33 Id at 474 (FF 2.10.5). 

### 34 RP (Apr. 23, 2015) at 1400-01. 35 CP at 464-69.

12No. 73399-1-1/13
she was not notified that this would be considered a basis for termination.36 The court 

### remanded for a determination "whethertermination is appropriate on the basis ofthe 

### parental deficiencies of which [the mother] was given adequate notice.37 Here, Kopp does not dispute she had notice that her substance abuse was an alleged parental deficiency that could supporttermination. Buteven ifthe Department did not give Kopp adequate notice that her mental illness was a deficiency that could supporttermination, the trial court's recent supplemental findings resolve this issue. Because Kopp's substance abuse deficiencies alone support termination, lack of notice that mental illness was an deficiency does not warrant additional reliefon appeal. Integrated Mental Health Treatment Related to her lack of notice argument, Kopp contends that services for integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment were reasonably necessary for her to successfully engage in substance abuse treatment. According to Kopp, the Departmentfailed to understandably offer her integrated treatment, therefore, the termination order must be reversed. We disagree. The Department must expressly and understandably offer or provide all courtordered services and "allnecessary services, reasonably available, capable of 

### correcting the parental deficiencieswithin the foreseeable future."38 "A service is

36182 Wn. App. 776, 791-93, 332 P.3d 500 (2014); see also In re Termination of F.M.O., No. 33339-6-III, slip. op. at 8-9 (Wash. Ct. App. May 24, 2016) (lack ofnotice of 

### recurring incarceration as parental deficiency requires remand to determine whether termination is appropriate based on deficiencies of which the motherwas given adequate notice.) 37 Id at 792-93. 38 RCW 13.34.180m(d); In re Dependency ofT.L.G., 126 Wn. App. 181,200, 108P.3d 156(2005).

13No. 73399-1-1/14 

### 'necessary'... if it is needed to address a condition that precludes reunification ofthe 

### parent andchild."39 "The services offered must be individuallytailored to a parent's specific needs."40 First, the record supports that Kopp did receive some integrated treatment. 

### Intercept provided Kopp "with cognitive behavioral techniques to manage her mental health" and "to help withnegative selftalk."41 Counselor RickSherman testified that Kopp benefited from cognitive behavioral techniques taught at Intercept.42 Kopp also acknowledged that mental health treatment at Intercept and Sundown was helpful: [T]he counseling through Intercept and as well as Sundown helped a lot with mental health. Ilearned at Sundown, even, why Iam an addict or. . . what causes that or. . . why
. . . certain behaviors was [sic] a character flaw. Imean, Ilearned a lotthrough the programs and a lot of itdoes—it's mental.!43! Second, Kopp argues that Potter and Moore did not explain to her what cognitive 

### behavioral therapy meant.44 But the multiplereferrals expressly mention mental health treatment. Forexample, social worker Potter advised Kopp in writing that she could obtain "Evidence Based Mental Health Treafrnenf—utilizing cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)" and a psychiatric evaluation "to determine medications to address mentalhealth 

### concerns" at eitherValley Cities or Sound Mental Health.45 The FCAP report expressly
39 A.M.M.. 182 Wn. App. at 793. 40 Inre Dependency ofD.L.B.. 188 Wn. App. 905, 920, 355 P.3d 345 (2015), review granted, 184Wn.2d 1034 (2016); see also In re Termination of S.J., 162 Wn. App. 873, 881, 256 P.3d 470 (2011) (same). 41 CP at468 (FF 2.8.36). 42 RP (Mar. 16, 2015) at 836-37. 43 ]d at 901. 44 See RP (Mar. 10, 2015) at 485-86; RP (Mar. 12, 2015) at 690. 45 Ex. 64 (emphasis added).

14No. 73399-1-1/15 recommends "evidence based mentalhealth treatment' utilizingcognitive behavior therapy and to get a psychiatric evaluation to determine medications to address "mental 

### health concerns (anxiety)."46 Social worker Solomon specifically read those recommendations to Kopp and told her she could obtain those services atValley Cities, 

### where she had previously received counseling.47 Yetdespite her own declarations that she knew she needed mental health treatment, Kopp failed to follow up on those repeated referrals. She waited untiljust before the termination trial to even apply to Valley Cities. Third, Kopp notes that hertestimony suggested she did not understand the difference between a psychological and psychiatric evaluation, but the referrals expressly stated that the recommended psychiatric evaluation was to determine possible mental health medications. Early inthe dependency, Kopp admitted she had 

### been self-medicating to address her depression and anxiety. Referrals to seek possible mental health medications do not seem confusing. Fourth, Kopp testified that ifthe court had ordered herto engage incognitive behavioral therapy and to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, she would have done so. But 

### early inthe dependency, Kopp acknowledged her need for mental health services. It is 

### inconsistentto suggestthat lack of a court orderprecluded her from obtaining necessary services offered by the Department. 

### Finally, Kopp's reliance uponIn reTermination ofS.J, isunpersuasive.48 In S.J., the Departmentfailed to provide needed and court-ordered mental health services
46 Ex. 67 at 10 (emphasis added). 47RP(Mar. 12, 2015) at 759. 48 162 Wn. App. 873, 256 P.3d 470 (2011).

15No. 73399-1-1/16 because itrequired a "sequential approach" inwhich the mother had to first address her 

### substance abuse problem.49 Despite knowing of her mental health issues, the Department did not refer the motherto mental health services until late inthe dependency period. After failing three times in a yearto complete inpatient drug 

### treatment, she succeeded soon after receiving mental health services.50 The mother argued on appeal that "coexistent mental health services were 

### necessary for successful early treatment."51 The S.J, court determined the mother's 

### inability to complete inpatient treatmentwas linked to her mental health issues.52 Had the Department offered the mother coexistenttreatment sooner, the court determined 

### she would have been able to recover in time to properly parent her child.53 The court noted the legislative finding that "'integrated treatment ofco-occurring disorders is 

### critical to successful outcomes and recovery.'"54 The court concluded the Department failed to offer and timely provide the mother all necessary services because, by not integrating the ordered services, the Departmentdid not tailor the services to her "co

### occurring problems."55 Here, the Department did not take a sequential approach. Throughout the dependency, several social workers and evaluators recommended that Kopp undertake both substance abuse and mental health treatment, but she did not follow up on those

49 Id at 881-82. 50 ]d 51 jd at 882. 52 id at 881-82. 53 id 54 id at 882 (quoting Laws of2005, ch. 504, § 101). 55 Id.

16No. 73399-1-1/17 referrals. Unlike S.J., Kopp was not denied mental health services until she 

### successfully completed substance abuse treatment.56 Therefore, we conclude the record supports the trial court's determination that the Department adequately offered or provided all necessary services, reasonably available, capable of correcting Kopp's parental deficiencies within the nearfuture. CASA's Failure to Investigate Both parents challenge the adequacy ofthe CASA's investigation. Specifically, Kopp contends the CASA's failure to "conduct a timely, independent investigation regarding C.G.R.'s best interests and Kopp's parental deficiencies" violated her due 

### process rights.57 Radder argues the CASA's failure to speakto him and to observe him with C.G.R. violated his due process rights. We disagree. The parents did not raise this due process issue below. A party may raise for the 

### first time on appeal a "manifest error affecting a constitutional right."58 The error must be "truly of constitutional magnitude."59 An error is "manifest" if it had "practical and

56 The court in S.J, also relied on the mother's success inbecoming sober once she received mental health treatment late inthe dependency. "The situation suggests the mental health services helped her get sober." id Here, there is no such correlation between the mental health counseling Kopp received and any progress in substance abuse treatment. 57 Appellant's Br. at 26. 

### 58 RAP 2.5(a); see also Inre Dependency ofA.W.. 53 Wn. App. 22, 27, 765 P.2d 

### 307 (1988) ("errors ofconstitutional magnitude may be raised for the first time in the appellate court") (citing RAP 2.5(a)(3)); A.M.M.. 182 Wn. App. at 790 (same). 59 State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688, 757 P.2d 492 (1988).

17No. 73399-1-1/18 

### identifiable consequences in the case," i.e., actual prejudice.60 The error must be "'so obvious on the record'" that itwarrants appellate review.61 Independency proceedings, a guardian ad litem (GAL) and a CASA have similar 

### responsibilities.62 They advocate on behalf of the child's best interests.63 ACASA must (1) investigate, collect relevant information aboutthe child's best interests, and report such information to the court; (2) meet with, interview, or observe the child, and reportto 

### the court any views or positions expressed by the child on issues pending before the court; (3) make recommendations based upon an independent investigation of the child's best interests; and (4) represent and be an advocate forthe child's best interests.64 A CASA must "make reasonable efforts to become informed about the facts 

### of the case and to contact all parties" and "examine material information and sources of 

### information, taking into account the positions ofthe parties."65 Here, the CASAPamela Beatty read the dependency file and all the social 

### workers' reports. She spoke to social workers Barry, Moore, and Porter. Beatty met 

### C.G.R. and regularlyobserved him at hiscaregivers' home until February 2015. Beatty spoke to C.G.R.'s caregivers. Beatty collected information fromseveral family members, includingRadder's mother and his girlfriend. Beatty attended the 

### dependency hearings and spent 130 hours on the case before trial. Beatty

60 State v. Schaler, 169 Wn.2d 274, 284, 236 P.3d 858 (2010). 

### 61 id (quoting State v. O'Hara, 167 Wn.2d 91, 99, 217 P.3d 756 (2009)). 62 RCW 13.34.030(11). 

### 63GALR2(a); RCW 13.34.100(1): see also In re Dependency ofJ.B.S., 122 Wn.2d 131, 139, 856 P.2d 694 (1993). 64 RCW 13.34.105(1 )(a)-(h); GALR 3. 65 GALR 2(g).

18No. 73399-1-1/19 

### unsuccessfully tried to call Radderonce. Beatty found it "challenging catching upwith him" because of his work in Alaska.66 Beatty did not observe and had not read any reports about Radder's visitation with C.G.R. 

### Importantly, neither parentchallenged the foundation oradmissibility of the CASA's testimony. Bothparents had a full opportunity to cross-examine her and to 

### expose any potentialweaknesses in her testimony, butdid notcross-examine her about 

### the adequacy of herinvestigation. Nordid counsel argue belowthat Beattyfailed in her duty. The parents do not indicatewhathelpful information Beatty may havefound ifshe had done a more thorough investigation. 

### The parents rely upon general due process requirements for a termination such
as "notice, an opportunityto be heard and defend, and the rightto be represented by counsel."67 ACASA has a duty to investigate the case and meet with orobserve the 

### child, buttheparticulars ofthe investigation are leftto theCASA. And evenifa CASA 

### violates statutory requirements, reliefon appeal is notnecessarilywarranted.68 Consistentwith her duties, Beatty investigated the case in detail related to C.G.R.'s best 

### interests. She gathered extensive information about both parents and C.G.R. Therefore, we conclude on this record thatthe CASA's investigation does not present

an issue of manifest constitutional error.

66RP(Mar. 17, 2015) at 989. 

### 67 In reWelfare ofL.R., 180 Wn. App. 717, 723, 324 P.3d 737 (2014); see also RCW 13.34.090. 

### essee Inre Dependency ofP.H.V.S., 186 Wn. App. 167, 180-81, 339 P.3d 225 

### (2014) (failure ofanincapacitated parent's GALto appear at themorning session ofthe third day ofadependency hearing in violation ofstatute was a due processviolation, but was harmless error).

19No. 73399-1-1/20 Even ifthe CASA violated a statutory duty or court rule, any errorwas harmless. Only one ofthe more than 100 trial courtfindings related to the CASA. The courtfound the CASA's testimony credible that Kopp is unable to manage her own needs, cannot keep her own lifestable and safe, and therefore is unable to keep C.G.R. safe on a fulltime basis. As to Rudder, the CASA concluded he was an absent parent, without a clear plan to be available to care for C.G.R. He has not addressed his chemical 

### dependency and domestic violence issues. The trial court agreed withthe CASA's conclusion that termination was in the best interests of C.G.R. But there is ample other 

### evidence addressing each ofthese points, especially the testimony ofthe social workers. And the court expressly found Kopp and Rudderwere not credible when they alleged they would promptly address their deficiencies and provide a safe environment for C.G.R. 

### We normallyexpect evidence of efforts bythe CASA to contact a parent in 

### writing as well as by relayingmessages through friends, relatives, and counsel. But Rudder had contact information for the social workers and the CASA and did not 

### maintain contactwith any of them. Anydeficiencies inthe CASA's investigation here go 

### to the weight, not the admissibility, of her testimony. And we deferto a trialjudge's credibility determinations. 

### Therefore, we conclude the parents fail to establish any manifest constitutional
error or actual prejudice arising from the alleged deficiencies inthe CASA's investigation.

20No. 73399-1-1/21 

### LikelihoodofRemedying Deficiencies Both parents contend the Departmentfailed to prove that there was little 

### likelihood their parental deficiencies would not be remedied inthe nearfuture. Kopp specifically contends the Departmentfailed to prove a nexus between her drug use and herfitness to parent. We disagree. 

### The primary purpose of a dependency is "to alleviate the problems that prompted 

### the State's initial intervention."69 There must be a relationship between the deficiencies and parenting ability.70 The focus of RCW 13.34.180(1 )(e) is if"'parental deficiencies have been corrected.'"71 The Department must prove there is little likelihoodthat parental deficiencies can be remedied in the nearfuture.72 To satisfy this burden, the Department must prove that the parent's current deficiencies preventthe parentfrom 

### providing the childwith "basic nurture, health, or safety."73 The court may considera parent's documented failed treatment attempts.74 "Ifallnecessary services reasonably capable ofcorrecting the parental deficiencies within the foreseeable future are offered
or provided, and the parental deficiencies are not substantially improved within 12



### 69 Inre Dependency ofT.L.G.. 126 Wn. App. 181, 203, 108 P.3d 156 (2005). 70 id 71 Inre Dependency ofT.R., 108 Wn. App. 149, 165, 29 P.3d 1275 (2001) (guoting In re Dependency of K.R., 128Wn.2d 129, 144, 904 P.2d 1132(1995)). 72 RCW 13.34.180(1)(e). 73 Inre Welfare ofA.B.. 181 Wn. App. 45, 61, 323 P.3d 1062 (2014); see also C.B., 134 Wn. App. at 953 (the Department "may not rely solely on past performance" to prove present parental unfitness). 74 RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)(i).

21No. 73399-1-1/22 months ofthe dependency order, a rebuttable presumption arises that this factor is established."75 Radder sporadically participated in and failed to complete required treatment within 12 months ofthe dependency order. While Social Treatment Opportunities recommended Radder complete a one-year domestic violence treatment program, Radder never undertook such treatment. The trial courtfound, and it is unchallenged on appeal, that Radder's "past and continuing absence from the child and his past and continuing untreated substance abuse problems are serious deficiencies that prevent him from being able to provide 

### adequate parenting services to the child."76 The court also found that Radder "had not consistentlyprovided for the child's basic needs throughout this case."77 Social worker Pottertestified that she was concerned about Radder's domestic violence and his "use 

### of drugs and alcohol and howthat impairs his judgment and abilityto safelyparent."78 Potter was also concerned about Radder "perpetrating domestic violence" and "how that 

### affects hisabilityto safely parent and how thatwould affect[C.G.R.]."79 Pottertestified thatthere was little likelihood Radder's parental deficiencies would be remedied in six 

### months. Beatty testified that C.G.R.'s "nearfuture" was sixmonths.80 Radder took no meaningful steps to address his parental deficiencies and offered no evidence to rebut

75 LfL, 108 Wn. App. at 165 (citing RCW 13.34.180(1)(e)). 

### 76 CP at 472 (unchallenged FF 2.9.3). 77 id (unchallenged FF 2.9.5). 78RP(Mar. 10, 2015) at498. 79 id 

### 80 RP (Mar. 17, 2015) at 980; RP (Mar. 18, 2015) at 1226.

22No. 73399-1-1/23 the presumption that his parental deficiencies would not be remedied inthe nearfuture. The record also supports that Kopp's parental deficiencies prevented herfrom 

### providing C.G.R. withbasic nurture, health, or safety. Kopp has a history of multiple 

### failedtreatment attempts and failed urinalyses. Kopp admitted she was "currently 

### smoking marijuana."81 Socialworker Moore testified that a parent's drug use impacts the ability to provide safety and supervision to a child. Moore testified that "individuals 

### who have substance abuse issues may have difficulty withjudgmentand making good 

### decisions. . . . especially with raising a child."82 Potter testified that Kopp's drug use impacted herjudgmentability to safely care and to be fully presentfor C.G.R., and she worried about C.G.R. "being in [Kopp's] care when she's not soberand her abilityto 

### make safejudgmentcalls and to keep him safe."83 Kopptested positive for oxycodone in May2014 and at the time oftermination in March 2015, had not completed any urinalyses since June 2014. Kopp consistently failed urinalyses and failed to complete treatment. Intercept counselor Rick Sherman testified that marijuana and opiate use 

### affect a person's mental state and decision making. At no time since C.G.R. was found dependent inOctober2012 has Kopp completed her 90-day urinalysis requirement. Therefore, substantial evidence supports that trial court's determination that there
was little likelihood Kopp's and Radder's parental deficiencies would be remedied inthe

near future.



### 81 RP (Mar. 16, 2015) at 849, 896; RP (Mar. 18, 2015) at 1202. 82RP(Mar. 12, 2015) at 707. 83RP(Mar. 10, 2015) at 515.

23No. 73399-1-1/24 Kopp: Visitationas a Necessary Service Kopp contends visitation is a "necessary service" that must be provided under 

### RCW 13.34.180(1 )(d), focusing upon recent amendments to federal law.84 But Washington courts have consistently held that visitation itself is not a service for purposes of proving RCW 13.34.180(1 )(d), and recent decisions reject the same federal 

### lawargument made by Kopp.85 Here, visitation is not a service that must be provided or
offered. Kopp: Restricting Cross-Examination ofAdverse Witness Kopp contends the trial court violated her due process rights by restricting her cross-examination of an adverse witness. We disagree. 

### We review a trialcourt's evidentiary rulings forabuse ofdiscretion.86 During cross-examination, Kopp's counsel asked social worker Moore ifthe plan was for 

### C.G.R. "to be adopted by his currentcaregivers."87 CASA's counsel objected, arguing 

### the testimony was "not relevant to the parents' fitness."88 Kopp's counsel argued itwas relevant to whethertermination diminished C.G.R.'s prospects for early integration into
a stable and permanent home. The court sustained the objection, stating that C.G.R.'s possible move to or adoption by another relative was not relevant:



### 84 Appellant's Br. at 35. 85 K.M.M.. 187 Wn. App. at 572-73 (citing Inre Dependency ofT.H.. 139 Wn. 

### App. 784, 791-92, 162 P.3d 1141 (2007)); see also Inre Dependency ofO.R.L., 191 Wn. App. 589, 598-600, 364 P.3d 162 (2015). 86 In re Welfare ofAngeloH., 124Wn. App. 578, 588, 102 P.3d 822 (2004). 87RP(Mar. 12, 2015) at 697. 88 Id.

24No. 73399-1-1/25 What happens afterthis hearing is another issue and presumably other proceedings willdecide that. Right now the question is whether or not these requirements of Section 180 are met. And Idon't see anything in Section 180 that requires the Department to prove or CASA to prove that 

### this childwill go in any particular home ifparental rights are terminated.[89] Kopp's counsel made an offer of proof: [IfMoore] would have been permitted to testify, she would have testified thatthe Department is currently investigating another relative for potential placement ofthis child at the request ofthe grandfather, who is currently the caregiver; that ifthe child were to be moved, that placement inthe home ofanother relative and adoption by another relative would take a minimum of six months, which is the Department's policy; and that an adoption cannot be finalized by the Department until the child has been in 

### the home of a new placementfor a minimum of six months.[90] A party in a termination proceeding has a right "to introduce evidence" and "to 

### examine witnesses."91 But the "rightto cross-examine witnesses is not absolute" and is "limited bygeneral considerations of relevance."92 Evidence that has "any tendencyto make the existence ofany fact that is ofconsequence to the determination ofthe action


### more probable or less probable than it would be withoutthe evidence" is relevant.93 The offer oftestimony about the time required for C.G.R.'s potential adoption by another relative or the current caregivers was not relevant. Whether C.G.R. may be adopted by his current caregivers or moved to a new placement is not ofconsequence to whetherthe parents' deficiencies would have been remedied inthe nearfuture under RCW 13.34.180(1 )(e). Nor does the excluded testimony tend to prove whether continuing Kopp's relationship with C.G.R. impedes his prospects for early integration
89 id at 698. 90 id at 699. 

### 91 RCW 13.34.090(1). 92 State v. Darden. 145 Wn.2d 612, 620-21, 41 P.3d 1189(2002). 93ER401.

25No. 73399-1-1/26 

### into a stable and permanent home under RCW 13.34.180(1 )(f). The Department need not prove that an adoptive home is available at the time oftermination.94 In fact, the court excluded similar testimony two days earlier. Kopp's counsel asked Potter if 

### C.G.R.'s current caregivers would adopt him ifthe termination petition were granted. 

### CASA's counsel objected, and the court sustained the objection.95 In this setting, the timeframe for a potential adoption is not ofconsequence. 

### Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in restricting Kopp's cross-examination of social worker Moore. Radder: Provision ofServices Radder contends the Departmentfailed to prove that all reasonably available services capable of correcting parental deficiencies inthe nearfuture have been expressly and understandably offered or provided. We disagree. The Department must expressly and understandably offer or provide all courtordered services. The Department must also provide or offer "allnecessary services, reasonably available, capable ofcorrecting the parental deficiencies within the 

### foreseeable future."96 At a minimum, the Department "must provide a parentwith a list of referral agencies that provide those services."97 The trial court ordered Radderto complete both a substance abuse and domestic violence assessment and any recommended treatment, as well as 90 days of



### 94 See Inre Dependency ofK.S.C.. 137 Wn.2d 918, 927, 976 P.2d 113(1999). 95 See RP (Mar. 10, 2015) at 506 ("I will sustain the objection. Idon't know where the child will end up afterthis hearing or how the ruling will be."). 96RCW13.34.180(1)(d). 97 In re Dependency of DA., 124 Wn. App. 644, 651, 102 P.3d 847 (2004).

26No. 73399-1-1/27 

### consistently clean urinalyses. Many unchallenged findings supportthatthe Department offered or provided all necessary and reasonably available services capable of correcting his parental deficiencies inthe nearfuture: -the Department referred him to a substance abuse assessment, 

### urinalysis testing and any recommended treatment in December2012;[98] -the Department referred him to a substance abuse assessment in 

### January 2013 and March2013;'991 -the Departmentreferred him to urinalysistesting;'1001 -the Department sent him bus tickets and an ORCA card to access the court-ordered services;11011 -the Department met with him and sent him letters with referrals for substance abuse treatment, urinalysis testing, and a domestic violence 

### assessment and any recommended treatment.'1021 Radder spent several months at a time working inAlaska as a commercial fisherman. Raddertold social worker Barry that he wanted to do the services in 

### Washington "once he returned."103 Raddertold social worker Moore that Puyallup was "more convenientforhim" to complete his services.104 Radder never provided the Department his workschedule, and he was "hard to reach and hard to contact" while in

98 CP at 469 (FF 2.8.53); RP (Mar. 9, 2015) at 231 ("Hewas residing in Puyallup then and this would have been the closest location to him to be able to access the service so as not to create a burden on him."). 99 id at 469-70 (FF 2.8.54 &2.8.58). 100 id at470 (FF 2.8.59). 101 id (FF 2.8.62). 

### 102 id (FF 2.8.63); RP (Mar. 9, 2015) at 226. 103 RP (Mar. 9, 2015) at 226. 104 RP (Mar. 10, 2015) at 394.

27No. 73399-1-1/28 

### Alaska.105 Mooreassisted Radder in obtaining a substance abuse assessment in Alaska. Multiple times, the Department expressly provided Radderwith a list of referral agencies that provided his required treatment. Radder acknowledged that "he knew what he needed to do and where to access services and how to do it."106 And as recently as December 2014, Moore contacted Radder about "getting services 

### established."107 Given his remote and isolated work setting and his preference to engage in services inWashington, the Department did tailorthe services to Radder's specific needs. Therefore, we conclude substantial evidence supports that the Department offered or provided all necessary and reasonably available services capable of remedying Radder's parental deficiencies in the nearfuture. Radder: Prospects for Integration Radder contends the Departmentfailed to prove that continuation ofthe parentchild relationship clearly diminished C.G.R.'s prospects for integration into a stable and permanent home. We disagree. The main focus ofthis factor is "the parent-child relationship" and if it"impedes the child's prospects for integration, not what constitutes a stable and permanent 

### home."108 The Department need not prove that a stable and permanent home is available at the time oftermination.109 This factor concerns "the continued effect ofthe

105 id at 441. 

### 106 RP (Mar. 9, 2015) at 349; CP at 470 (FF 2.8.66) 107 RP (Mar. 19, 2015) at 1317. 108 K.S.C.. 137 Wn.2d at 927. 109 Id.

28No. 73399-1-1/29 legal relationship between parent and child, as an obstacle to adoption; it is especially a 

### concern where children have potential adoption resources."110 Here, Pottertestified that at the time of trial C.G.R. had been in an out-of-home placementfor two and a half years. Potter had concerns about Radder's availability to parent because of his work in Alaska. The trial courtfound Radder's testimony that "he intends to stop working in 

### Alaska" to be present inC.G.R.'s life was not credible.111 Therefore, we conclude substantial evidence supports that continuation ofthe parent-child relationship clearly diminished C.G.R.'s prospects for integration into a stable and permanent home.
Best Interests Both parents contend the trial court erred in concluding termination oftheir parental rights was in C.G.R.'s best interests. We disagree. Once the Department proves the factors in RCW 13.34.180, the trial court then considers ifthe Department proved by a preponderance ofthe evidence thattermination 

### is in the child's best interests.112 This is a fact-specific inquiry.113 "Where a parent has been unable to rehabilitate over a lengthy dependency period, a court is 'fullyjustified' in 

### finding termination in the child's best interests."114 Here, C.G.R. had been dependent for two and a halfyears before termination. Social worker Moore testified that C.G.R. 

### needed stability in his life and that lack of stability can be detrimental to a child. Social
110 In re Dependency ofA.C.. 123 Wn. App. 244, 250, 98 P.3d 89 (2004) (emphasis omitted). 111 CP at471 (FF 2.8.72). 112RCW13.34.190(1)(b). 113 In re Dependency of A.M., 106 Wn. App. 123, 131, 22 P.3d 828 (2001). 114 LR,, 108 Wn. App. at 167 (quoting A.W., 53 Wn. App. at 33).

29No. 73399-1-1/30
worker Pottertestified that C.G.R. "is in a situation where his future is unknown."115 

### Beattytestified that adoption was in C.G.R.'s best interests for purposes ofstability. Therefore, we conclude the recordsupports the finding thattermination of Kopp's and Radar's parental rights is inC.G.R.'s best interests. We affirmthe trial court's 

### termination order and liftthe existing stay.

WE CONCUR:

£^/ A-^-—> v* •* 

### ^

115 RP (Mar. 10, 2015) at 473.

30