INTHE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of M.N. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

RACHEL NIEHAUS,Appellant. ) No. 71124-5-1 ) DIVISION ONE CO

cr. 

### ) UNPUBLISHED OPINIO^! \ CO

o

re ) FILED: July 28, 2014 Appelwick, J. — Rachel Niehaus appeals the orderterminating herparental rights 

### to her daughter, M.N. Niehaus argues that the trial court erred in determining that all necessary and reasonably available services were provided to her under RCW 13.34.180(d). She also contendsthatthetrialcourtimproperlyfound thatterminationwas in M.N.'s best interests. We affirm. FACTS Rachel Niehaus is the biological mother of M.N., born December 22, 2000. Niehaus also has a biological son, A.N. (DOB 5/11/92), and two other biological daughters, C.W. (DOB 1/3/95), and A.L. (DOB 11/11/08). Both A.N. and C.W. were removed from Niehaus's care when they were young. M.N. and A.L. remained in Niehaus's care until July 2011 

### On July 3, 2011, Niehaus walked in on A.L.'s father, Charles Lee,1 raping M.N. Niehaus took M.N. away from theirapartmentto talk to heraboutwhathappened, but left A.L. behind with Lee, because she did not believe Lee would harm his own daughter. 

### 1Lee is not M.N.'s biological father.No. 71124-5-1/2
M.N. told Niehaus that Lee had sexually abused her on multiple occasions, sometimes when Niehaus was asleep in the next room. Later that night, Niehaus took M.N. to the 

### hospital and reported the assault.2 On July 7, 2011, the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) filed a dependency petition for M.N., asserting thatthere was no parentor guardian availableto


### care for her.3 DSHS requested continued out-of-home placement for M.N. due to the alleged sexual abuse by Lee and Niehaus's failure to protect M.N. The dependency petition stated that, on July 5, 2011, a social worker spoke with fictive kin who had expressed concern to Niehaus a year prior about Lee having sexual contactwith M.N. It also detailed two incidents with Child Protective Services (CPS), one in 2007 and one in 2008, inwhich Niehauswasfound to have committed negligenttreatmentormaltreatment of M.N.In 2007, M.N. told Niehaus that she had been sexually abused by Niehaus's friend's brother. The alleged abuse had occurred a month and a halfearlier, butthe issue
arose because M.N. had what appeared to be a bladder infection and reported blood in her urine. A medical professional referred the incidentto CPS. The 2008 incident was also referred by a medical professional. Niehaus went to the Providence Intervention Centerfor a forensic exam afterbeing raped by a man whom M.N. let into the house. The medical professional reported that Niehaus demonstrated anger towards M.N. and told M.N., "[l]t's your fault." M.N. recognized the medical



### 2Lee was ultimatelyarrested and convicted ofrape of a child. 3 DSHS also filed a dependency petition for A.L., which was granted. Niehaus later voluntarily relinquished her parental rights to A.L. A.L. is not the subject of this appeal.No. 71124-5-1/3 professional, because she had previously been to the center herself for a forensic examination. While atthe center, M.N. repeatedly said she hadto go to the bathroom but couldn't. As a result, the medical professional feared that M.N. had a urinary tract infection or, worse, a sexually transmitted disease. During the dependency action, M.N. disclosed that she was also previously sexually assaulted byA.N.—herhalf-brother—and a man named "Roosevelt." Roosevelt
was someone Niehaus knewand said shetrusted. M.N.furtherreportedthatLee sexually abused A.L. M.N. was found to be dependent. She was removed from Niehaus's custody. M.N. was placed in Ryther Child Center, a residential mental health treatment facility for children. M.N. suffers from chronic mental health conditions such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and severeanxiety. Shealso displayed aggressivebehavioras a child, throwing a knife at Niehaus at age 2 and kicking Niehaus in the stomach when Niehaus was pregnantwith A.L. M.N. was latertransferred to Northwest Children's Home in Idaho for a brief period before moving to the Child Study and Treatment Center (CSTC), a psychiatric hospital for children and adolescents in Lakewood, Washington. In the meantime, Niehaus participated in a number of State-offered services to address herparental deficiencies. These included parenting classes, familypreservation services, family voluntary services, parent-child interactive treatment, non-offending family group therapy, supervised and therapeutic visitations, and individual therapy. The social worker initially assigned to her case, Serena Bales, observed that Niehaus wasNo. 71124-5-1/4 making progress. In November 2012, DSHS formed a plan to transition M.N. back to Niehaus's care, beginning with overnightvisits. M.N. was scheduled for a visit with Niehaus on November 21, 2012. Bales accompanied M.N. to Niehaus's home that day. While Bales was there, M.N. became upset and aggressive with Niehaus. M.N. was upset because Niehaus said that A.N. 

### mightspend Thanksgiving withthem, despite thefact that M.N. identified himas a sexual abuser. M.N. ran outside and up the stairs ofthe apartment building across the parking lot. As Bales watched, M.N. climbed over a balcony railing. Bales was very concerned, because M.N. had a history ofdiscussing and attempting suicide. Bales ran up afterM.N. and tried to restrain herwhile M.N. punched and bitBales. When the police arrived, they handcuffed M.N. and took herto the hospital. Bales wentto the emergency room for her facial injuries from M.N.'s punches. On March 28, 2013, DSHS petitioned to terminate Niehaus's parental rights to 

### M.N. The petition alleged that Niehaus lacked insight intothe needs ofM.N., was unable to make safe and protective choices for M.N., and was unable to meet M.N.'s emotional and developmental needs. DSHS acknowledged that Niehaus had complied with all court-ordered services, but stated that there was little likelihood that conditions would be remedied so M.N. and Niehaus could be reunified inthe nearfuture. Avoluntaryguardian ad litem (VGAL)was appointed for M.N. on April 3, 2013. The termination trial began on October 7, 2013. Niehaus testified on her own 

### behalf. She acknowledged her past mistakes as a parent, such as allowing dangerous
men around her children and blaming M.N. for the 2008 rape. Niehaus also addressed 

### her own mental health concerns, including PTSD and depression. She recognized thatNo. 71124-5-1/5


### DSHS had been involved inherparenting foralmost20 years andthatshe had requested out-of-home placementfor M.N. inthe past. However, she stated that she participated in classes and counseling, showed progress, and understood her duties as a parent. She 

### felt that M.N. would be negatively impacted ifher parental rights were terminated and feared for M.N.'s safety. M.N.also testified. She expressed the desireto see and talk to Niehaus regularly. Shewanted Niehaus involved inherlifebecause "she means a lot to me and she's helped
me through a lot of stuff." M.N. said ifNiehaus's rights were terminated and they were not allowed to talk, she would feel depressed and sad, and itwould be kind of scary. When asked why she was not living with her mom, she said itwas because she was sexually abused and Niehaus beat her. M.N. said that she would like a "forever home" with Niehaus, but named two otherpeople—atemporaryfoster parentand M.N.'s former preschool teacher—by whom she would also like to be adopted. The remaining testimonycamefrom professionalswho had evaluated or interacted with Niehaus and/or M.N. Niehaus's therapist, Sara Strauss, testified that Niehaus attended and participated in hertherapy. Strauss stated that Niehaus acknowledged her role in her children's abuse, although she had not admitted that she was 100 percent accountable. Strauss observed that Niehaus had the tendency to choose abusive partners, an area inwhich she had made progress butwhere issues stillexist. LoveniaWarren, a social workerwho replaced Bales in December 2012, said that she believed termination would benefit M.N., because Niehaus's emotions strongly affected M.N. and prevented M.N.'s wounds from healing. Warren observed that M.N.No. 71124-5-1/6 struggled with not knowing what would happen with her mother's parental status and would benefitfrom the answerto that question, even if itmeanttermination. Warren believed that Niehaus could not distinguish safe and unsafe people. As
an example, she referenced an incident with a man named "Duane." Duane was a strangerwho came into Niehaus's homeduring an unsupervised visit with A.L. He stayed for an hour asking Niehaus to perform oral sex before he grewtired ofbeing denied and left. Warren concludedthatNiehauswas not capableof providing a safe and stable home
or providing for M.N.'s emotional needs. In addition, Warren believed that M.N. was adoptable and a very sweet, loving child who was eagerto please. Jenny Travaille, who took over the case from Warren in May 2013, also testified. Travailleexpressed strong concernaboutNiehaus's ability to parent, especiallyNiehaus's lack of insight into how her own actions impacted her children, her lack ofempathy, and her lack of remorse and responsibility for what happened to her children. Travaille identified the "Duane" incident as an example of Niehaus's lack of insight, especially in light of its similarities to the 2008 rape. Travaille also told an anecdote about Niehaus demonstrating a lack ofempathy: [Wjhen [M.N.] first moved to Northwest Children's Home, she went a very long time [without seeing Niehaus], it was a big change for her without having interaction with her mother. I brought [M.N.] to the office. We arranged for there to be a supervised visit. [M.N.] was very excited to see her mother, as there is a bond. Her mom was looking at a magazine. Her mom did not stand up to greet her child. She responded, "Do not hug me too hard." Travaille acknowledged that Niehaus loves herchildren, butthoughtthattherewas
a difference between wanting to do something—in this case, be a fitparent—and having the ability to do it. She said that Niehaus and M.N. have a bond, but one that is notNo. 71124-5-1/7 

### healthy. She believed that an ongoing relationship with Niehaus was preventing M.N. from "progressing in her trauma narrative" and that M.N. needed permanence to move on. Travaille called M.N. a "spectacular" child, whom she thinks is adoptable, but that continuing her relationship with Niehaus diminishes those prospects. 

### Skye Camphouse, who served as M.N.'stherapist at Ryther, also acknowledged the unhealthy bond between M.N. and Niehaus: 

### They're very connected, however, the relationship does present more of what you would see in sisters or really close friends versus a motherdaughterrelationships [sic].There are notclearboundaries between [M.N.] and [Niehaus]. When [Niehaus] did attemptto setboundaries, [M.N.] would have a difficult time with that and would escalate. 

### Camphouse testified that the mother-daughter relationship negatively impacted M.N. M.N. displayed "parent parentification," where she assumed the role of a parent, not a child. Forexample, M.N. often insisted on being part of the adultdecision-making process and would express the need to care for her motherand A.L. 

### Camphouse also testified that she originally held family therapy with M.N. and 

### Niehaus together, but discontinued the jointsessions because they were a significant stressorto M.N. WhileM.N. was present, Niehauswouldsometimesexpress herdifficulty 

### staying committed to being M.N.'s parental figure and her desire to relinquish her legal rights. Camphouse believed that M.N. needed permanence and a veryskilled caregiver and Niehaus had not demonstrated that she could provide those things. Camphouse 

### concluded that it would initially be very difficultfor M.N. ifNiehaus's parental rights were terminated, butthat itwas still in M.N.'s best interests. 

### Kristin Steinmetz, the program director at CSTC, also expressed concern about M.N.'s need for a skilled, dedicated caregiver. She called M.N.'s long term prognosisNo. 71124-5-1/8 "guarded," given the severity of M.N.'s behavior and emotional instability. However, she stated that she "can't imagine there'd be any reason" why M.N. would not eventually transfer to a foster home. Psychologist Dr. Christopher Tobey performed a psychological and parenting evaluation ofNiehaus. Based on Niehaus's behavior, such as herreaction to Lee's abuse 

### and her blaming M.N. for the 2008 rape, Dr. Tobey was concerned that Niehaus could not keep M.N. safe long-term. He was also worried that Niehaus's behavior was not 

### improving, noting thatthe Thanksgiving incident had occurred a yearafterhis evaluation. Dr. Tobey felt itwas unclear how to proceed. He testified that, when children are cut off from their biological parents, they can develop fantasies that they are bad or unloved or thattheir parents are bad people. However, his concerns with Niehaus were 

### persistentand he feltthatpermanencewas importantin M.N.'s life. Hetestifiedthatearly 

### permanence allows children to feel safe and develop a sense of self-identity and selfesteem: Imean, it's not uncommon when children experience traumatic insult, that their self esteem and self worth is compromised and they don't think 

### positively aboutthemselves. Because if my own parentwon't carefor me, who is? And if my only parent doesn't protect me, who will? It's not safe, and Iam not worth being taken care of, then what is the value that Isee in me? 

### He expressed that itwas very importantforM.N. to be able to move on and develop her

sense of self. However, he recommended that, ifNiehaus's rights were terminated, she should remain involved in M.N.'s life. 

### The VGAL did not testify, but her report was offered in lieu of her testimony. The VGAL observed that all of Niehaus's children demonstrated difficult behaviors at a very

8No. 71124-5-1/9

young age and that Niehaus's "responses all seem the same, when the going gets tough 

### she wants to give them away." The VGAL recognized that Niehaus received parenting assistance, but that it did not help: WhetherMs. Niehaus is incapable ofretaining the skills she learns, or lacks the endurance to apply them for any length of time is unknown. What is 

### known is that her own behavior has had significant negative impact on all four of her children and to this VGAL she seems unwilling or unable to acceptthe responsibility for her actions and their consequences. The VGALrecommended that Niehaus's rights be terminated. The trial court granted DSHS's petition to terminate Niehaus's parental rights to M.N. Niehaus appeals.
DISCUSSION A trial court may ordertermination ofparental rights if (1) the State proves the six statutory elements of RCW 13.34.180 by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial courtfinds thattermination is inthe child's best interests. RCW 13.34.190; ]n
re Dependency of K.S.C.. 137 Wn.2d 918, 925, 976 P.2d 113 (1999). The six statutory elements of RCW 13.34.180 are as follows: (a) Thatthe 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 ofthe parentfor 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 nearfuture[; and]No. 71124-5-1/10 (f) That continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home. Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence is evidence that shows the ultimatefact at 

### issue to be highly probable. K.S.C.. 137 Wn.2d at 925. We give deference to the trial court in weighing the evidence and witness credibility. In re Welfare of Aschauer, 93 Wn.2d 689,695, 611 P.2d 1245(1980). Findings offactmustbe supported bysubstantial evidence in light ofthe clear, cogent, and convincing standard. State v. Broadawav, 133 Wn.2d 118, 131, 942 P.2d 363 (1997); In re Dependency ofK.N.J.. 171 Wn.2d 568, 577, 257 P.3d 522 (2011). Unchallenged findings offact are verities on appeal. In re Interest ofJ.F.. 109 Wn. App. 718, 722, 37 P.3d 1227 (2001). I. Necessary and Reasonably Available Services 

### Niehaus argues that the trial court erred in finding that all necessary and 

### reasonably available services were provided under RCW 13.34.180(d).4 This is so, she asserts, because she was not provided a psychiatric evaluation to determine whether medication would improve her PTSD. 

### At trial, Niehaus alleged that the State failed to provide all necessary and reasonably available services. However, she argued only that she did not receive 

### "intensive" parenting classes.5 She did not raise the issue of PTSD medication.

4Niehaus arguesthatthe Statefailed to prove RCW 13.34.180(e) and (f),because determination of those elements would have been premature without proving RCW 13.34.180(d). Niehaus also assigns errorto two corresponding findings of fact: thatthere is little likelihood that conditions will be remedied so that the child can be returned to the mother in the near future and that continuation of the parent-child relationship clearly 

### diminishes the child's prospect for early integration into a stable and permanent home. Because we find that all necessary and reasonably available services were provided, it 

### was not prematureforthe trial court to findthat RCW 13.34.180(e) and (f) were satisfied. 5Niehaus does not renew this argumenton appeal.

10No. 71124-5-1/11 

### Nor did any of the witnesses—who included multiple social workers, a psychologist, and Niehaus's therapist—address or recommend PTSD medication. At 

### leastonewitness, Dr. Tobey, was awarethatNiehaus sufferedfrom PTSD and wastaking Prozac. However, afterevaluating Niehaus and being inthe bestposition to recommend


### a necessary service, he did notsuggest an assessmentof orchange in her medication. Niehaus does notdisputethatthe issue of PTSD medication was notraised below. 

### Instead, Niehaus argues for the first time on appeal that DSHS had reason to know that 

### PTSD medication might be a necessary service. As support, she notes that a "basic internet search" reveals that medication is available and often necessary to treat PTSD. This evidence is outside the record on review. RAP 9.1(a) (record on review may contain 

### report of proceedings, clerk's papers, exhibits, and administrative record). Ourreview is limited to issues contained in the record. State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335, 899 

### P.2d 1251 (1995). We decline totake additionalevidence on appeal. RAP9.11. The record does not establish that a psychiatric evaluation of Niehaus's PTSD medication was a necessaryservice. The trialcourt did not err infindingthatallnecessary 

### and reasonably available services were providedto Niehaus.6
I. Child's Best Interests 

### Niehaus challenges the trial court's finding that termination was in M.N.'s best 

### interests. The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence thattermination is in a child's best interests. RCW 13.34.190(1)(b); Inre Dependency ofA.V.D., 62 Wn.


### 6Niehaus also assigns error to the court's finding that additional services would have beenfutile. Sheprovides nobasisfor herassignmentof error. We decline to review 

### it. RAP 10.3(a)(6); Norcon Builders. LLC v. GMP Homes VG. LLC, 161 Wn. App. 474, 486, 254 P.3d 835 (2011) (declining to consideran inadequately briefed argument).

11No. 71124-5-1/12 App. 562, 571, 815 P.2d 277 (1991). Whethertermination is in a child's best interests is case-specific and mustbe decided on the facts and circumstances at hand. In reA.V.D., 62 Wn. App. at 572. The dominant concern is the child's moral, intellectual, and material welfare. In re Adoption of Lvbbert. 75 Wn.2d 671, 674, 453 P.2d 650 (1969). Niehaus first notes that she and M.N. shared a strong bond. Multiple witnesses testified to this fact. However, the testimony also showed that the bond was unhealthy 

### and negatively impacted M.N. Camphouse identified their bond as one that resembled 

### sisters or friends, causing M.N. to prematurely assume a parental role. Travaille testified that M.N. was unable to move on from her past traumas due to her relationship with 

### Niehaus. And, Warren stated that M.N. was strongly affected by Niehaus's emotions, which prevented her from emotionally healing. In this way, the strength ofthe parentchild bond was actually detrimental to M.N., ratherthan beneficial. Niehaus further argues that termination is not in M.N.'s best interests, because 

### M.N. did not have any adoptive prospects and was not capable of integrating into a 

### permanent home in the near future. While multiple witnesses testified that M.N. is adoptable, she does not have a prospective adoptive family at this time. And, it is clear 

### that her road to recoverywill be a challenging one. But, this difficultfuture is a significant
reasonwhyprofessionalsconcludedthat terminationwastherightoutcome. Camphouse testified that M.N.'s unstable emotional state leaves her at high risk for revictimization, 

### meaning thatshe needs a caregiverwiththedecision making abilities to ensurethatM.N. is safe. Niehaus has consistently demonstrated that she is unable to do so, instead 

### continuallyexposing M.N. to dangerous people and emotionally jarring situations.

12No. 71124-5-1/13 

### Finally, Niehaus argues that it was unclear whether M.N. would be helped or harmed by the termination. Several witnesses acknowledged that termination may be difficultforM.N. However, Niehaus has significantand chronicparental deficits. She has exposed herchildren to dangerous men on multipleoccasions. DSHS has been involved inherparenting since heroldestchild was young, andthe State has offered hernumerous 

### services including classes and therapy. Niehaus testified that she made progress as a result of the State-offered services she was offered. Both Strauss, Niehaus's therapist, 

### and Julie Larsen, a family therapist who worked with Niehaus and A.L., stated that they had seen some improvement inNiehaus's parenting. But, the testimony overwhelmingly indicates thatthis progress is not enough to meet M.N.'s needs. 

### While Niehaus clearly loves M.N., she does not consistently treat M.N. with the discipline and affection of a parent. Instead, she often demonstrates an inability to understand or empathize with M.N.'s emotional state. For example, she was either
unaware or indifferent that M.N. would react poorly to seeing A.N., whom M.N. had identified as a sexual abuser. And, she has repeatedly expressed in M.N.'s presence that she cannot or does not wantto maintain her role as M.N.'s parental figure. 

### Itis undisputed that M.N. is a high needs child. The testimony shows that she 

### requires a dedicated, skilled caregiver, which Niehaus has not demonstrated herself to be. Moreover, severalwitnesses testified thatM.N. cannotprogress inhertreatmentdue to her relationship with Niehaus and Niehaus's uncertain legal status. 

### We respectthe gravity of this conclusion and recognize the lovethat Niehaus has for M.N. We note that the court left open the possibility that Niehaus could remain in 

### M.N.'s life, should M.N.'s mental health care providers determine that it is in her

13No. 71124-5-1/14 

### therapeutic interest. However, in light ofNiehaus's inability to provide adequate care for 

### M.N., we find no error in the trialcourt's termination of her parental rights.7
We affirm.

WE CONCUR:



### 7Niehaus assigns error to nine additional findings of fact. She does not identify the natureofherchallenges. Wedo notconsiderthesefindings as veritiesforthepurpose 

### of our analysis. See J.F.. 109 Wn. App. at 722. However, inthe absence ofadequate 

### briefing, we will not review the findings individually. See RAP 10.3(a)(6); Norcon. 161 Wn. App. at486. 

### Even ifwe reviewed thefindings, our ultimateconclusionwould be the same. Read 

### together, the challenged findings generally state that Niehaus has significant parental deficiencies that fail to meet M.N.'s high needs and termination is thus in M.N.'s best interests. As discussed above, the evidence amply supports these findings.

14