l 

1 

l 

I 

I 

l 

I 

FILED 

NOVEMBER 3, 2016 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DIVISION THREE 

In the Matter of the Dependency of 

J.P. 

In the Matter of the Dependency of 

C.P. 

In the Matter of the Dependency of 

A.P. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 34027-9-111 

( consolidated with 

No. 34028-7-111 

No. 34029-5-111 

No. 34060-1-111 

No. 34061-9-111) 

UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

PENNELL, J. -Father J.P. appeals the trial court's orders finding his three 

daughters to be dependent, arguing the Washington State Department of Social and 

Health Services ( the Department) failed to present sufficient evidence supporting the 

finding. Mother M.A. contends the same as to her two daughters. Both parents also 

argue the court erred in ordering out-of-home placement. We affirm. 

FACTS 

M.A. and J.P. lived with their three daughters in Ritzville, Washington.1 The 

Department filed for dependency after the couple's children were found home alone in a 

1 J.P. is the biological father of the three daughters, A.P., C.P., and Ju.P. M.A. is 

the biological mother of the two younger daughters, C.P. and Ju.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. and A.P. 

residence that raised health and safety concerns, including a syringe found on the floor. 

This was not the couple's first encounter with law enforcement. Throughout 2015, police 

had been to the home approximately 20 times based on reports for "[ e ]verything ranging 

from animal complaints to weapons offenses." Report of Proceedings (Dec. 29, 2015) at 

119. Many of these contacts involved domestic violence allegations by either M.A. or 

J.P. Although the abuse allegations were constant, they were also consistently recanted. 

No domestic violence arrests were ever made. 

After the 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 a job by the time of the dependency 

hearing in December 2015. 

At the dependency hearing, a law enforcement officer testified 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. Both parents denied the substance abuse 

allegations and claimed the Department's concerns were unfounded. Both parents also 

reiterated their denials of domestic violence, explaining that past abuse allegations were 

either due to misunderstandings or outright lies. 

The trial court granted the Department's petitions, finding neither parent 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. and A.P. 

capable of adequately caring for the children. According to the court, "[t]he parents are 

in denial about the issues that led to the filing of this dependency action .... Both parents 

would appear to have severe mental health, anger and denial issues, which put the 

children in their care at risk for neglect at least, and possibly abuse." Clerk's Papers (CP) 

at 83,221, 349. The court ordered the children be placed with M.A.'s mother. Both 

parents appeal. 

ANALYSIS 

Sufficiency of Evidence 

The parents contest two factual issues: ( 1) the trial court's purported finding that 

the parents suffered from severe mental health problems and (2) the finding under RCW 

13.34.030(6)(c) that the children were at risk of developmental damage based on the 

absence of an adequate caregiver. Our review is for sufficiency of the 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 of any 

actual mental health diagnoses. But this 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. and A.P. 

a "potential disconnect with 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 enforcement provided 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. 

The parents' 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 of supervision, exposure to physical indications of 

methamphetamine use, and repeated exposure to domestic violence allegations. These 

environmental deficiencies, coupled with the parents' refusal to acknowledge any need 

for improvement, suggested the children were at risk of abuse or neglect. While 

testimony from the Department's social workers was encouraging and suggested the 

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 of the 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. and A.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 of discretion. In re Dependency of A.C., 

74 Wn. App. 271,275, 873 P.2d 535 (1994). 

Out-of-home placement may be ordered if the trial court finds there is no parent or 

guardian available to care for a child. RCW 13.34.130(5)(a).2 While both M.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 on the best interests of the 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 of parental deficiencies, M.A. and J.P. made themselves 

unavailable to take on the responsibilities expected of them 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, but because 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. and A.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). The parents' failure to recognize 

and address repeated concerns about domestic violence supported the trial court's finding 

that neither parent could, at the time of the 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-home placement. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the trial court's orders for dependency are affirmed. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

Pennell, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

Lawrence-Berrey, A.CJ. 

6