# l 1 

# l I 

# I 

# l I FILED NOVEMBER3, 2016 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISIONTHREE Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of J.P.
Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of C.P.
Inthe Matter ofthe Dependency of A.P. ) ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) 

### ) ) No. 

### 34027-9-111 (consolidatedwith No. 

### 34028-7-111 No. 

### 34029-5-111 No. 

### 34060-1-111 No. 

### 34061-9-111)

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, J. -FatherJ.P. appeals the trial court's orders finding his three daughters to be dependent, arguingthe Washington StateDepartmentofSocial and Health Services ( the Department) failed topresent sufficient evidence supportingthe finding. MotherM.A. contends the same as to hertwo daughters. Bothparents also argue the court erred in ordering out-of-homeplacement. We affirm. 

## FACTS M.A. andJ.P. livedwiththeirthree daughters in Ritzville, Washington. 1 The Department filed for dependency afterthe couple's children were found home alone in a

1J.P. is the biological father ofthe three daughters, A.P., C.P., and Ju.P. M.A. is the biological mother ofthe two younger daughters, C.P. andJu.P.

# ' l l 

## 1 I 

# I l 

# , 1 

### 1 i l

# I J 

# I f 

# l
1 

### ' 

# ' 

# I

I 

# t 

# l i No. 34027-9-111; 34028-7-111; 34029-5-111; 34060-1-111; 34061-9-111 In re Dependency of JP., C.P. andA.P.
residence that raised health and safety concerns, including a syringe found onthe floor. This was notthe couple's first encounterwith law enforcement. Throughout 2015, police had been to the home approximately 20 times based on reports for "[e]verythingranging from animal complaints to weapons offenses." Report ofProceedings (Dec. 29, 2015) at 119. Many ofthese contacts involved domestic violence allegations by eitherM.A. or J.P. Although the abuse allegations were constant, they were also consistentlyrecanted. No domestic violence arrests were evermade. Afterthe Department filed the dependency petitions, the parents moved to Spokane in order to receive assistance from Supportive Services for Veterans Families. The parents had obtained housing and J.P. had ajobby the time ofthe dependency hearing in December 2015. At the dependency hearing, a law enforcement officertestified to the problems observed at M.A. and J.P.'s home, including concerns the parents were using methamphetamine. M.A. and J.P. also testified. Bothparents denied the substance abuse allegations and claimed the Department's concerns were unfounded. Bothparents also reiterated their denials ofdomestic violence, explaining that past abuse allegations were either due to misunderstandings or outright lies. The trial court granted the Department's petitions, finding neitherparent was
2

# i 

# ' 

# l l I
1 l 

# l l i j

# I l 

# l 1 J ", 

## l No. 34027-9-111; 34028-7-111; 34029-5-111; 34060-1-111; 34061-9-111 In re Dependency of JP., C.P. andA.P. capable ofadequately caring for the children. According to the court, "[t]heparents are in denial about the issues that led to the filing ofthis dependency action
....Bothparents would appear to have severe mental health, anger and denial issues, whichputthe children in their care at risk for neglect at least, andpossibly abuse." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 83,221, 349. The court ordered the children beplaced with M.A.'s mother. Both parents appeal. ANALYSIS 

### Sufficiency of Evidence The parents contesttwo factual issues: (1) the trial court'spurported finding that the parents suffered from severe mental healthproblems and (2) the finding underRCW 13.34.030(6)(c) that the children were at risk ofdevelopmental damage based on the absence ofan adequate caregiver. Ourreview is for sufficiency ofthe evidence and requires broad deference to the fact finder. In re Dependency of CM, 118 Wn. App. 643, 649, 78 P.3d 191 (2003). Going to the first issue, we agree the record lacks competent evidence ofany actual mental health diagnoses. Butthis is beside the point. The trial court did not find the parents suffered from any mental health impairments. Rather, the court found the parents "would appear to have severe mental health
... issues" and may be experiencing
3

# l 1 

# i

I { 

# l 

# I

I 

# I No. 34027-9-111; 34028-7-111; 34029-5-111; 34060-1-111; 34061-9-111 In re Dependency of J.P., C.P. andA.P.

a "potential disconnectwith reality." CP at 100, 221, 349 (emphasis added). The parents' inconsistent abuse allegations and refusal to acknowledge the health and safety
concerns raised by law enforcementprovided a sufficient basis for the court to conclude the parents were disconnected from reality in a way that suggested mental health
concerns. The court's preliminary mental health finding is supported by sufficient evidence. Theparents' arguments under RCW 13.34.030(6)(c) are also unconvincing when reviewed under the proper deferential standard. The record provides numerous reasons for finding the children's home environment unsafe, including unsanitary conditions, inadequate food, hygiene deficits, lack ofsupervision, exposure tophysical indications of methamphetamine use, and repeated exposureto domestic violence allegations. These environmental deficiencies, coupled withthe parents' refusal to acknowledge any need for improvement, suggestedthe children were at risk ofabuse orneglect. While testimony from the Department's social workers was encouraging and suggestedthe parents' shortcomings could be addressed with appropriate services, the trial court still had a basis for its dependency findings. In addition, the fact that the parents' situation had improved by the time ofthe dependency hearing was not sufficient to undermine the

4

# l

l l l 

# l 

# l

1

j 

### j l 

# i No. 34027-9-111; 34028-7-111; 34029-5-111; 34060-1-111; 34061-9-111 

### In re Dependency of JP., C.P. andA.P.
court's determinations. 

### See In re Dependency of Brown, 149 Wn.2d 836, 842, 72 P.3d 757 (2003). 

### Disposition The parents next challenge the children's out-of-home placement in the disposition orders. We review the court's orders for abuse ofdiscretion. 

### In re Dependency of A.C., 74 Wn. App. 271,275, 873 P.2d 535 (1994). Out-of-home placement may be ordered ifthe trial court finds there is no parent or guardian available to care for a child. RCW 13.34.130(5)(a).2 While bothM.A. and J.P. may have been "available" in the physical sense, they were not available in the sense contemplated by the dependency statute, which focuses onthe best interests ofthe child. The term "available" contemplates "[h ]aving the qualities and the willingness to take on a responsibility." WEBSTER'S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 77 (1995). By completely denying the allegations ofparental deficiencies, M.A. and J.P. made themselves unavailable to take onthe responsibilities expected ofthem by the Department and the court. This provided an adequate basis for removal. Finally, J.P. argues (1) the Department did not make reasonable efforts to prevent

2 Other statutory grounds are possible, butbecause the statute is written in the disjunctive, only one is necessary. 

### 5

## I 

# I i 

# I i I 

# l
J No. 34027-9-111; 34028-7-111; 34029-5-111; 34060-1-111; 34061-9-111 In re Dependency of JP., C.P. andA.P.
out-of-home care and (2) the court did not identify the specific services the Department offered. The flaw in J.P.'s argument is that reasonable efforts to avoid removal do not have to be made where the children's health, safety, and welfare cannot be adequately protected in the parents' home. See RCW 13.34.130(5). Theparents' failure to recognize and address repeated concerns about domestic violence supported the trial court's finding that neither parent could, at the time ofthe hearing, care for the children without placing the children's health, safety, and welfare at risk. The trial court acted within its discretion in ordering out-of-homeplacement. 

### CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the trial court's orders for dependency are affirmed. A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuantto RCW 2.06.040. Pennell, J. WE CONCUR:

Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ.

6