Opinion ID: 1201690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: requirement of a review hearing

Text: The mother also contends the trial court erred in failing to conduct a review hearing every 6 months as required by RCW 13.34.130(5). That provision requires the status of all dependent children be reviewed at least every 6 months to determine whether court supervision should continue. See RCW 13.34.130(5). The record contains no evidence of a review hearing after May 21, 1992. The Department contends the findings entered pursuant to the order denying the motion for revision fulfilled the requirement of a review hearing. See Brief of Respondent Department, at 33-35. We disagree. Review hearings are designed to focus on the question of the child's dependency status. See In re Chubb, 112 Wn.2d 719, 726, 773 P.2d 851 (1989). If the child is not returned home, the Legislature has directed the court to make specific findings: (i) Whether reasonable services have been provided to or offered to the parties to facilitate reunion, specifying the services provided or offered; (ii) Whether the child has been placed in the least-restrictive setting appropriate to the child's needs, including whether consideration has been given to placement with the child's relatives; (iii) Whether there is a continuing need for placement and whether the placement is appropriate; (iv) Whether there has been compliance with the case plan by the child, the child's parents, and the agency supervising the placement; (v) Whether progress has been made toward correcting the problems that necessitated the child's placement in out-of-home care; (vi) Whether the parents have visited the child and any reasons why visitation has not occurred or has been infrequent; (vii) Whether additional services are needed to facilitate the return of the child to the child's parents; if so, the court shall order that reasonable services be offered specifying such services; and (viii) The projected date by which the child will be returned home or other permanent plan of care will be implemented. RCW 13.34.130(5)(b). [6] The fact the trial court may have addressed some of these matters explicitly or implicitly in deciding the motion for a change of placement does not transform those proceedings into the statutorily mandated review hearing. Most notably, the trial court did not adequately discuss the question, required under RCW 13.34.130(5)(b)(ii), whether the plan to send J.B.S. to Mexico was the least restrictive alternative available in this case. We reverse the Superior Court and remand for a review hearing pursuant to RCW 13.34.130(5) to determine whether the mother's present circumstances warrant a reconsideration of the child's dependency status. If, after that hearing, the Department still wishes to make a motion to change placement, it can do so at that time. Any such motion should be evaluated by the trial court in a manner consistent with this opinion. ANDERSEN, C.J., AND BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, DURHAM, SMITH, GUY, JOHNSON, AND MADSEN, JJ., concur.