r;\

t» i -I bt_L I ;•-.,, u- «•}. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of G.G., JR.,b.d. 11/07/04, J.D.G., b.d. 09/30/03, S.M.M., b.d. 11/23/99, Minor Children.

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Respondent,

v. ITZEL JIMINEZ SALAZAR, Appellant. No. 71241-1-1 consolidated with No. 71242-0-1 and No. 71243-8-1

PUBLISHED OPINION FILED: December 1,2014 Verellen, A.C.J.

— Itzel Jiminez Salazar appeals from an orderterminating 

### her parental rights to her three children. She contends that she was deprived of her rightto counsel of choice when the trial court denied hermotion for a continuance to 

### hire private counsel. Butbecause she had not selected substitute counsel andfailed to show that she had the ability to obtain substitute counsel, the trial court did not 

### violate her right to counsel of choice orabuse its discretion. Shefurtherchallenges 

### the court's finding that she was unfitto parent. Becausethe record supports the 

### court'sfinding of unfitness, her challenge to the termination order iswithoutbasis. Accordingly, we affirm.No. 71241-1-1/2

FACTS Itzel Jiminez Salazargave birth to S.M. on November 23, 1999, when she was 15 years old. S.M.'s father was not involved with S.M. and ultimately relinquished his parental rights. Salazar lived with her mother during this time but eventually moved out of her mother's home with S.M. when she was 17 years old. According to Salazar, her mother physically and verbally abused herwhile she was a minor living
in her home. Salazar had two more children with Gerardo Guizar, whom she married in 2003. J.G. was born on September 30, 2003, and G.G. was born on November7, 

### 2004. During the marriage, there were several incidents ofdomestic violence requiring police intervention and, in2005, Salazar leftGuizar and obtained a 

### protection order against him. That same year, Salazar sent S.M. to live with her mother because she was unable to care for all three children. 

### By 2009 or 2010, Salazar, J.G., and G.G. had moved inwith Salazar's mother and S.M. Sometime in2010, Salazar moved out ofher mother's home, taking J.G. 

### and G.G. with her. She left S.M. to remain living inthe home with her mother and her 

### youngerbrother. In March 2011,J.G. and G.G. disclosed to Salazarthat they had been sexually assaulted bySalazar's brother while they were living with her mother. Salazarreported this to the police and Child Protective Services (CPS), butshe did not remove S.M. from her mother's home. Salazar's brother continued to live in the 

### home and pleaded guilty to assaulting J.G. and G.G. in 2012. InJune 2011, Salazar leftJ.G. and G.G. inher roommate's care while she was at work as a cocktail waitress. After her shift, she drank until she blacked out and didNo. 71241-1-1/3

not return home that night. The next morning, her roommate called the police and CPS when she was unable to locate Salazar. All three children were taken into protective custody and placed infoster care. On June 10, 2011, the State filed a dependency petition. On July 27, 2011, the courtfound the children dependent as to Salazar and maintained the children's 

### placement inout-of-home care.1 The court also ordered remedial services and required Salazarto participate in a drug/alcohol evaluation, random urinalysis testing 

### (UA) and parenting classes. The order allowed Salazarto have a minimum of two hours supervised visitation once perweek. From October 2011 to December 2012, Department ofSocial and Health 

### Services (Department) social worker Matthew Shawworked withSalazarto comply withthe court-ordered service requirements. He referred herto service providers and 

### scheduled weekly meetings with her, butshe often failed to show for the meetings 

### and never provided proofthat she participatedin any of the services. Salazarhad 

### notparticipated in intensive outpatientalcohol treatment as recommended by the court-ordered evaluation. Infact, she told Shaw that she was working as a cocktail waitress in a bar and asked that he not share that information with her treatment 

### provider. And while she claimed to be involved in parentingclasses, she never provided Shaw any proof of her participation. Salazar's visitation with her children during this time was inconsistent. She 

### hadweeklytwo-hourvisits scheduled with them but struggledwith logistics and was
1The court also found the children dependent as to the father on September 22, 2011.No. 71241-1-1/4


### often late or failed to appearfor visits, causing stress for the children and escalation 

### of their behavior. Shaw spent a considerable amount of timeaddressing visitation logistics with littlechange in Salazar's behavior. 

### Shaw gave Salazar referrals forcourt-ordered mental health counseling, but 

### Salazardid not participate in counseling. Shewould either deny needing counseling or falsely report that she was participating incounseling or trying to. She never provided documentation ofher participation, nor were any ofthe providers able to confirm that she had kept appointments or completed intakes. All three children received services. J.G. required more extensive services 

### due to her extreme behaviors.2 When Shaw attempted to explain to Salazarthe severity ofthe children's behaviors, she was overwhelmed. According to Shaw, Salazar needed to play an active engaged role in trying to stabilize the children's behaviors in their placements; but instead, she simply reacted and lacked an
awareness ofthe severity oftheirtrauma. She constantly struggled to set limits with them and escalated their behavior by failing to be on time or to show up for the visits. J.G. was particularly traumatized by Salazar's missed visits. She was assaultive at times and often took weeks to recover after a missed visit. Because Salazar's transient involvementwas too disruptive to the treatment team working to stabilize the children, she was never introduced into the children's therapy. InJuly 2012, the court ordered that visitation be reduced to a single two-hour visit per month, finding it necessary to protectthe children's health, safety and welfare.
2J.G. required hospitalized inpatient psychiatric care and was later placed in a behavior rehabilitation services center after an unsuccessful placementwith S.M.No. 71241-1-1/5


### InSeptember2012, Shaw recommended that Salazar participate in a second alcohol evaluation. He did so based on concerns about herfailure to participate in alcohol treatment and involvement in a domestic violence incident where she was found to be intoxicated in March 2012. Salazarcompleted the evaluation, but no treatment recommendations were made, leading Shaw to believe that she may not have been honest in this evaluation. On December 12, 2012, the court held a permanency planning hearing. The 

### court found that Salazar had only partiallycomplied withcourt-ordered services as 

### she had completed a drug/alcohol evaluation but had not participated in parenting classes or mental health counseling. The court also found that Salazar had not visited the children on a consistent basis, noting that she only recently resumed visits 

### after notvisiting for overfive months. In addition to the previously-ordered services, the court ordered a psychological evaluationwith a parenting component. The court further ordered that the Department make a referral for termination of her parental rights byJanuary 15, 2013. 

### In January 2013, social workerSanna Olsen was assigned to Salazar's case. Salazardeclined to participatein weekly meetings with Olsen and only metwith her 

### every othermonth and by telephone ande-mail. Olsenreferred Salazar to Dr. Michael O'Leary for the psychological evaluation. 

### In March andApril of 2013, O'Leary conducted an evaluationwhich included 

### psychologicaltesting, aclinical interview, and aparent-child observation. O'Leary concluded that Salazarhad impairedfunctioning inareas involving her ability to 

### organize ahousehold, totimely meetherobligations, andtorememberinstructions.No. 71241-1-1/6 

### He determined that she hadlimited cognitivefunctioning which may have been caused by complextrauma she experienced growing up in an abusive environment. 

### Heconcluded that she would need toparticipate in veryintensive psychiatric and mental health care for two to fouryears to overcome the trauma. He identified her 

### parenting deficiencies to include cognitive problems, a pervasive distrust and suspicion ofothers' motives, and willingness to accept abusive behaviorfrom others. 

### Heconcluded that Salazar was "marginally capable ofproviding an adequately stable, structured, safe, and consistently nurturing environmentfor her children at this time."3

### O'Leary recommended that she participate intrauma-based cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). O'Leary also concluded that she would benefit from parenting instruction, such as a parenting coach. Olsen referred Salazarto 

### community agencies offering CBT, butshe did not participate in any such therapy despite her representations to Olsen that she was doing so. Olsen did not offerthe 

### parent coaching service recommended by O'Leary since Salazarwas not regularly 

### attending her visits, the setting in whichparentcoaching would need to occur. During Olsen's time on the case, Salazarcontinued to struggle with keeping hervisit appointments and in fivemonths had only two visits with J.G., one of which was part ofthe psychological evaluation. During the visits, she was unable to set limits and effectively manage the children's behavior. On April 4, 2013, the State filed a petition for termination ofthe parent-child relationship. On May 9, 2013, the court held a review hearing and found Salazar in
3 Ex. 22 at 16.No. 71241-1-1/7 

### partial compliance as she had completed the psychological evaluation, but also found that she had not confirmed her participation incounseling or parenting classes, had not attended meetings relating to her children orvisited her children since 

### December 14, 2012, and had not met withOlsen since February 2013. The court then ordered that she attend all meetings regarding her children, follow recommendations ofthe psychological evaluation, including obtaining a sponsor, attending 12-step meetings, and participating in CBT counseling, domestic violence support groups, and the children's therapy as recommended. Salazar never provided Olsen with any evidence that she participated in these services. In mid-May 2013, Salazar's case was transferred to social worker Morgan White. InJune 2013, White met with Salazar, and they discussed services. Salazar reported that she had attended counseling and completed her parenting class, but she did not present any documentation ofthis participation. White also asked herto complete a UAthat day, but she leftwithout doing so. At a second meeting, White discussed Dr. O'Leary's recommendations, and Salazar reported that she was working with her attorney and thatthey had located a CBT therapist. She also 

### agreed to participate in a UA butthen did not do so. White also provided Salazar with a complete list ofrequired services and available community resources that provide those services. 

### On September 18, 2013, the court held a permanency planning hearing. The courtfound Salazar in partial compliance ofthe ordered services as she had 

### completed a parenting class on May 16, 2013. But the court also found that she had not participated in individual counseling, domestic violence support groups, trauma-No. 71241-1-1/8 

### based CBT sessions, family counseling, 12-step groups, had not obtained a sponsor, and had not attended allmeetings regarding herchildren. The termination trialwas setfor October28, 2013. On October22, 2013, the 

### parties appeared for a preliminary hearing, and counsel for the Department noted that "the mother may have an issue with appointment ofcounsel."4 The court declined to consider the matter because it had not been noted on the calendar. 

### On October28, 2013, the parties appeared for trial and the court asked Salazar's attorney, Susan Harness, about a possible motion to continue. Harness 

### reported that Salazar had contacted her the day before the preliminary hearing and had asked herto make a motion to withdraw. Harness stated that she had spoken to Salazar since then and that itwas her desire to have Harness withdraw and request
a continuance for Salazarto hire new counsel. The court asked Salazarfor her input. Salazar stated that she felt that she hadn't been well represented and that she wanted hertherapistto testify, butthat the therapist was not available for two weeks. The court also asked Salazar ifshe had found a replacement lawyer. Salazar said she met with one lawyerthat she did not want to hire and that she was planning to meetwith two more that week. She could not provide the names ofthe lawyers. The court then asked herto elaborate aboutthe therapist that might be a potential witness. She provided only herfirst name and said she worked in Lynnwood or Edmonds. Harness told the courtthat she wished to continue representing Salazar and that she was prepared to go forward. She also said thatthis was the first time she



### 4Report ofProceedings (RP) (Oct. 22, 2013) at 2.

8No. 71241-1-1/9


### had been given the contact information forthe therapist but that she would call her as 

### a witness ifshe could contact her. The Department and the attorneys for S.M. and the guardian ad litem (GAL) all objected to the continuance, citing undue delay and the children's need for permanency. The Department also stated that this was the first ithad been made aware ofthe possible therapistwitness. The court denied the motion, noting that the dependency had been pending for more than 27 months, that the termination had also been pending for some time, and that everyone was aware of this trial date. Indeed, Salazar had known ofthe trial date for four months. The court also concluded thatthere was no basis for allowing Salazar to hire new counsel and remove Harness from the case: The stated reason essentially is that mother is not sure and comfortable about the representation provided by Ms. Harness. That really does not rise to the level to have appointed counsel relieved. As Ithink has been attested to by others, Ms. Harness is an experienced and competent attorney inthese kind ofmatters. There 

### really is nothing that has been provided inthe record here which would indicate to the contrary as to this particular case. The motherhas indicated a desire to hire alternative counsel, but 

### thiscomes on essentiallythe morningoftrial, and there are no specific names offered oreven an indication that she has met with these individuals. So that is ratherspeculative in nature. 

### Perhaps the biggest concern is the prospect of this potential witness for the mother, the therapist. Although, one notes that 

### according to the mother this therapist has onlybeen involved in the case for the last couple months itsounds like. So, there may be limitations interms ofhertestimony. Butthe Court would be inclined nonetheless to make accommodations to try to ensure ... at leastthe 

### possibility of her being heard from. Accordingly, the Court would be inclined, for example, to allow telephonic testimony regarding that 

### therapist. And ifthat proves simply impossible, to at least consider possible alternatives. Although, again, this is a case that has been 

### pending trial forsome time. Again, this is a rather new development itNo. 71241-1-1/10
sounds like interms of [the] possibility ofher being a potential witness. 

### And, as noted, hertestimony Igatherwould be rather limited inscope.151 The court then took a short recess to allow Harness time to confer with Salazar. When court reconvened, Harness indicated that she was ready to proceed. 

### After hearing testimony from Salazar, the three social workers, Dr. O'Leary, and the GAL, the court granted the termination petition. The courtfound that Salazar had parental deficiencies ofdrug and alcohol abuse, cognitive limitations that impact her ability to safely parent and make choices inthe children's best interests, an inability to provide stability and consistency, a lack ofinsight ofher children's needs and her own parenting deficits, and impairedjudgment in her relationship choices which places her children at risk of domestic violence. The court further found that all services capable ofcorrecting the parental deficiencies were offered and that Salazar chose notto participate in them. The court concluded that there was little likelihood conditions would be remedied such that the children could be returned her in the
nearfuture, that Salazarwas unfit to parent currently and inthe foreseeable future, and that she was incapable of providing the children a permanent and stable home. Salazar appeals. ANALYSIS Salazar contends that by denying her continuance to retain private counsel, the trial court violated her constitutional right to counsel ofchoice. The Department responds that the right to counsel ofchoice applies only to criminal prosecutions, not 

### civil proceedings to terminate parental rights, and therefore, Salazar's claim of a
5RP (Oct. 28, 2013) at 18-19 (emphasis added).

10No. 71241-1-1/11


### constitutional deprivation is without basis. The Departmentthen argues thatthe trial 

### court's denial of the continuance was a properexercise of discretion given the untimeliness ofthe request. We agree thatthe trial court properly exercised its discretion by denying the continuance. 

### Salazar acknowledges thatWashington law has not specifically addressed whether a parent in a proceeding brought by the State to terminate parental rights has a right to retain counsel ofchoice. Instead, she relies on case law interpreting the constitutional right to counsel ofchoice in criminal prosecutions guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 22 ofthe Washington State Constitution. 

### In UnitedStates v. Gonzalez-Lopez,6 the Supreme Court recognized that an element ofthe Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right of a defendantwho does not require appointed counsel to choose who to represent him. The Court concluded that "the right at stake here is the right to counsel of choice, not the right to a fair 

### trial,"7 and "thatthe accused be defended bythe counsel he believes to be best."8 Thus, when assessing a requestfor substitute counsel, an inquiry into the effectiveness ofthe counsel sought to be replaced or the prejudice to the defendant 

### by that counsel's representation was unwarranted and improper.9 Rather, the court held that deprivation ofthis right occurs "when the defendant is erroneously

6548 U.S. 140, 144, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 LEd.2d 409 (2006). 7Jd at 146. 8 Id at 140. 9 Id. at 148.

11No. 71241-1-1/12 

### prevented from beingrepresented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received."10 

### In State v. Hampton.11 this court recently applied Gonzalez-Lopez to find such a deprivation in a criminalcase. In doing so, the court rejected the analysis used in 

### State v. Price12 and State v. Roth13 to evaluate atrial court's decision to deny a request for a continuance to obtain substitute counsel. Because the Roth-Price analysis required an inquiry into the legitimacy ofthe defendant's dissatisfaction with 

### counsel and the potential for identifiable prejudice to the defendant, it did not comply withGonzalez-Lopez and was therefore improper.14 In Hampton, the trial court denied the defendant's requestfor a continuance to 

### allow his newly retained private counsel to have time to prepare his case.15 In doing so, the trial court considered the defendant's dissatisfaction with his appointed 

### counsel, counsel's effectiveness, and the potential prejudiceto the defendant.16 This court reversed, holding that under Gonzalez-Lopez, the trial court improperly considered those factors to deny the continuance, requiring the defendant to proceed 

### withappointed counsel in violation of his right to counsel of choice.17

101± 

### 11 Wn. App. , 332 P.3d 1020 (2014). 12 126 Wn. App. 617, 109 P.3d 27 (2005). 13 75 Wn. App. 808, 881 P.2d 268 (1994). 14 Hampton, 332 P.3d at 1029. 15jd at 1025. 

### 16jd, at 1030. 17 Id. at 1030-31.

12No. 71241-1-1/13


### Salazarsimilarlyargues that she was deprived of her right to counsel ofchoice when the trial court denied her a continuance to obtain private counsel after 

### considering the legitimacy ofher dissatisfaction with and the competence of appointed counsel. The Department contends that because the Sixth Amendment 

### right to counsel ofchoice applies only to criminal prosecutions, not proceedings to terminate parental rights, the Gonzalez-Lopez analysis does not apply here. InWashington, RCW 13.34.090(2) provides the right to counsel intermination proceedings, a right derived from the due process guarantees ofarticle I, section 3 of 

### the Washington Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.18 While the Department is correctthat a parent's right to counsel intermination proceedings does not derive from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applicable incriminal 

### prosecutions, this is a distinction of no consequence. Whetherthe right to counsel in termination proceedings is derived from the Sixth Amendment or due process 

### guarantees, the parent's right to hire the attorney of their choice is inherent inthe 

### right to counsel. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the right to assistance of counsel necessarily includes this right to counsel ofchoice: "It is hardly necessary to

18 In re Luscier's Welfare, 84 Wn.2d 135, 138, 524 P.2d 906 (1974): In the Matter ofWelfare ofJ.M.. 130Wn. App. 912, 921, 125 P.3d 245 (2005). The 

### Department noted at oral argumentthat in Lassiter v. Dep't ofSoc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1981), the United States Supreme Court 

### concluded that it is up to the states to determine the due process standards for counsel intermination cases. Our courts have recognized that "'the full panoply of 

### due process safeguards applies to deprivation hearings'" and thatthe right to counsel inparental termination proceedings derives from constitutional due process 

### provisions. JJW., 130 Wn. App. at 921 (quoting Luscier, 84 Wn.2d at 137). Lassiter does not diminish the vitality of the due process based right to counsel in termination proceedings.

13No. 71241-1-1/14


### say thatthe right ofcounsel being conceded, a defendant should be afforded a fair 

### opportunity to secure counsel of his ownchoice."19 The right ofcounsel in termination proceedings established by statute and derived from constitutional due 

### process provisions necessarily includes the right to counsel ofchoice. Butas recognized inHampton, a court also retains the right to control its calendar, and the ability ofthe parentto secure substitute counsel is critical to the exercise ofthe right to choose retained or volunteer counsel.20 Here, there was no 

### motion to substitute counsel; Salazar had not reached any agreementwith any attorney, retained or volunteer, to represent her inthe termination trial. Salazarfiled only a motion for a continuance to delay the trial and allow herto interview two attorneys she had not yet met. The trial court asked careful questions and determined: Salazarwanted to retain substitute counsel but had not yet done so; she interviewed one attorney but did not wantthat attorney to represent her; she planned to interview two other attorneys within the next week but could not give the trial courtthe names ofthose attorneys as she did not have their names with her; the dependency had been pending for 27 months; the termination trial had been scheduled. Salazar knew of the trial date for four months. The Department, the GAL, and counsel for S.M. all opposed a continuance on the ground that the children should not be forced to wait longerfor the court to determine whether a termination should be granted.

19 Powell v. State of Ala.. 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932). 20 Hampton. 332 P.3d at 1028.

14No. 71241-1-1/15
Consistentwith the observations in Hampton, the trial court announced that 

### becausethemotion came at the start ofthe scheduledtrial,21 "there are nospecific
names offered oreven an indication that she has met withthese individuals," so the request "is rather speculative in nature."22 

### IfSalazar had had new counsel presentwith her at the time of her motion or 

### could otherwise documentthat she had obtained new counsel to represent her, then 

### she could havefiled a motion to substitute the new counsel rather than merely askfor a continuance to try tofind someone other than her appointed counsel to represent her. 

### In such a setting, the trial court could then consider the impact of any delay upon the interests ofthe children. Because Salazar had not selected new counsel and failed to show she had the ability to obtain substitute counsel, the trial court did notfrustrate 

### Salazar's right to counsel of choice orabuse its discretion by denying a continuance. Salazaralso contends that the record does notsupportthe trial court's finding of unfitness based on her parental deficiencies of cognitive impairment, poor relationship choices that put her children at risk ofdomestic violence, drug and 

### alcohol abuse, and a lack of insightabout her children's needs. We disagree. Acourt may ordertermination ofparental rights when shown by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that (1) the child has been found dependent, (2) the child has been removed from the parentfor at least six months as a result ofthe dependency, (3) all necessary services, reasonably available, capable ofcorrecting



### 21 Even ifwe considerthe motion "raised" at the preliminary hearing one week before trial, that was still on the eve oftrial. 22 (RP) (Oct. 23, 2013) at 19.

15No. 71241-1-1/16 

### the parentaldeficiencies within the foreseeable future have been expressly and understandably offered or provided, (4)there is little likelihoodthat conditions will be remedied so thatthe child can be returned to the parent inthe nearfuture, and 

### (5) that continuation of the parent and child relationship clearly diminishes the child's prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home.23 Although not an 

### explicit statutory element, the court must also find by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that a parent is currentlyunfit before terminating parental rights.24 We give the trialcourt's decision great deference and will uphold its findings of fact ifthey are supported by substantial evidence.25 

### Salazarfirstcontends thatthe evidence did not establish that her cognitive limitations directly impacted her ability to parent, citingcase law holding that proof of cognitive impairments alone is insufficient to support a finding of fitness.26 She points to evidence that she was capable ofprotecting her children by ending a violent relationship with her husband and by reporting her brother's sexual abuse ofJ.G. and G.G. But the following unchallenged findings of fact, now verities on appeal, support the court's findings that Salazar's cognitive impairments impacted her ability to parent and that her refusal to actively participate in services to remediate this deficiency rendered her unfit to parent currently or in the foreseeable future:



### 23 RCW 13.34.180(1). 24 Inre Dependency of K.R.. 128 Wn.2d 129, 142, 904 P.2d 1132(1995). 25 In re Dependency of K.S.C.. 137 Wn.2d 918, 925, 976 P.2d 113(1999). 26 See In re Welfare ofA.B.. 181 Wn. App. 45, 65, 323 P.3d 1062(2014).

16No. 71241-1-1/17


### 2.47 In his psychological evaluation, Dr. O'Leary recommended that the mother participate intrauma focused cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). On June 6, 2013, the current social worker Morgan White met with the mother and specifically discussed the recommendation for CBT. Ms. White identified agencies that offer CBT, although she did not identify specific counselors. 2.48 The mothertold Ms. White that her attorney arranged forthe motherto attend CBT with a qualified therapist. During meetings inJuly and September, the mother continued to representto the 

### social workerthat she was incounseling; she was not.[27]

2.51 The mother completed a psychological evaluation with Dr. Michael O'Leary in April 2013. Dr. O'Leary the mother has significant developmental and cognitive problems that are a barrierto the acquisition of adaptive and appropriate parenting behaviors. He concluded itwas highly unlikely the mother would remediate her parenting deficiencies withoutfull and vigorous participation in services. 2.51 In his evaluation, Dr. O'Leary recommended reunification contingent on adequate demonstration ofthe mother's participation in and benefitfrom recommended services. At trial Dr. O'Leary recommended termination ofparental rights based 

### on the mother's failure to actively participate inservices.1281 Salazar next challenges the court's finding that her poor relationship choices render her unfit to parent. But as the record reveals, her history as a victim of domestic violence put the children at risk, and the children have required therapy to 

### address the impactof this domestic violence. And as noted above, Salazarwas involved in a domestic violence incident in March 2012 where she again associated with an abusive man. As she admitted, "he saw the abused woman that Iwas in the

27 Clerk's Papers at 12. 28 Clerk's Papers at 13.

17No. 71241-1-1/18 

### past, because those guys can spot that,"29 further demonstrating that she was still involving herselfin riskyrelationships that had the potential for harm to her and her 

### children. The record further shows that despite having an abusive relationshipwith her mother, she chose to continue that relationship and placed her children in her mother's home, putting them at risk offurther harm.30 

### Salazaralso challenges the court's findingthat drug and alcohol issues were a 

### deficiency that contributed to her parental unfitness. Thisfinding is supported by the record. It is undisputed that her children ended up inprotective custody because she went on a drinking binge, blacked out, and leftthe children with a roommate. Salazar's drug and alcohol evaluator recommended intensive treatment. Salazar admitted to Shawthat she took a job at a bar as a cocktail waitress despite this
treatment recommendation and that she was later involved in a domestic violence incidentwhere she was found to be intoxicated. While Salazarpoints to the fact that the second alcohol evaluation made no treatment recommendations, Shaw testified that he had concerns about her lack ofhonesty. The trial courtwas entitled to find Shaw credible on this point. Finally, Salazarchallenges the court's finding that she lacked insight about her children's needs to the extent that she was unfit to parent. This finding is supported by the record. Shaw testified that "there was a lack on the mother's part of
awareness about the severity ofthe children's trauma," and while all the


### 29RP(Oct. 28, 2013) at 59. 30 Salazardescribed her mother as "like my husband; she was abusive." ]d_. at 62.

18No. 71241-1-1/19 

### professionalsworking to stabilize the children needed her to "play an active engaged role," she was instead "constantly reacting," was "often latefailing or missed visitations which escalated the children in their respective . . . placements."31 Indeed,
as noted above, the court eventually reduced her visits due to the harmful impact on the children. Still, she did not change her behavior and further limitedher 

### engagementwiththe children, failing to visitthem at allbetween Mayand November of 2012. 

### Even ifany one ofthese findings alone did not support a finding of unfitness, the remaining unchallenged findings of fact and the record as a whole support parental unfitness and the order oftermination. The trial courtfound credible the 

### evidence presented at trialthat Salazarhad parental deficiencies rendering her incapable of providing a stable, safe home forthe children, that services were offered 

### to help remedy these deficiencies, and that she consistentlyfailed to participate in the required services.
We affirm.

WE CONCUR: 

# T/t</k&1( I-J *'^~fi

31 Id. at 93.

19